Wunderlin B W, Ferster M, Schneider W
Thurgauer Klinik St. Katharinental, Diessenhofen, Switzerland.
Int J Rehabil Res. 2002 Jun;25(2):103-17. doi: 10.1097/00004356-200206000-00004.
Definition of prognostic factors for outcome quality is of increasing interest in rehabilitation medicine. The main question of this pilot study in 552 patients was whether global outcome could be predicted by a team-based chief physician specialized in physical medicine and rehabilitation (PMR), and whether other predictive factors would exist (ICIDH-2 levels, pain, working incapacity). Little data is available about the possibility of global prediction of prognosis in the rehabilitation of patients with musculoskeletal disorders. All 552 patients met each member of the rehabilitation team and key data from each patient was discussed at the rehabilitation conference within the first 2 days. On entry to the study, a chief physician specialized in PMR assessed the patient's key data, which was structured according to ICIDH-2 (ICF) and assessed quantitatively on a scale from zero to ten. Second, the PMR physician rated the expected global prognosis on the basis of ICIDH-2 and other key data, and in respect to the defined rehabilitation goals (see Table 2). At the same time, the patient and an assistant doctor (AD) assessed pain scores (VAS 0-10) and the actual working incapacity (%). These assessments were completed within the first 3 days and were repeated before discharge. Assessment of outcome was rated by both, separately, according to the above-mentioned scale. Different regression models were calculated, searching for significant differences between the numerous variables. In the regression models, the best predictor for outcome was the PMR physician assessment. Complete and good correspondence between prediction and outcome was obtained in 71.4% (42.1% and 29.3%, respectively) in the descriptive model. Quantitatively assessed ICIDH-2 levels, pain at entrance and working incapacity at entrance were not predictive factors for global outcome. The global outcome was rated as very good/good in 79.0% of cases by patient and in 75.1% cases by the AD, as moderate in 13.9% of cases by the patient and 18.4% of cases by the AD, and as poor/worsening in 7.1% of cases by the patient and in 6.5% of cases by the AD. Rating of outcome by the patient and the AD gave complete and good correspondence in 87.6% and no correspondence in only 2.6% of cases. Pain could be reduced highly significantly (P<0.001). There was a highly significant degree of correlation between quality of outcome and pain relief (outcome 'very good' and 'good', P<0.001; 'moderate', P=0.003; 'poor/worsening', not significant). Partial or complete reduction of working incapacity could be reached in 30% of the patients. This had no statistical influence on global outcome; neither did persistent working incapacity. Prediction of global outcome by a team-based PMR assessment seems to be a useful semiquantitative method with high predictive value. The method, including the critical point of validation, is currently being extensively discussed. Prediction is an integral process based on the high information grade of a multiprofessional rehabilitation team, the ICIDH-2 structures, the definition of rehabilitation goals, the knowledge and experience in bio-psycho-social medicine and the application of common sense. Rating of global outcome by the patient/AD is an integrative process as well. Pain relief is an important and very strong factor, with a high degree of influence on global outcome in musculoskeletal rehabilitation, probably by improving quality of life. Working incapacity is no reason for refusing patients rehabilitation and both improvement of working capacity and persistence of working incapacity, has no statistical influence on global outcome. Finally, the extent of the four ICIDH-2 levels, especially negative contextual factors, were not predictive, that is, they had no significant influence on global outcome in this study. In conclusion, prediction of global outcome by a team-based chief physician specialized in PMR is of high predictive value, practicable and useful for rehabilitation processes, quality assurance, insurance companies and health policies. To our knowledge, this is the first published study on this topic.
康复医学中,对影响预后质量的因素进行定义愈发受到关注。这项针对552例患者的初步研究的主要问题是,由物理医学与康复(PMR)专科的团队主任医师能否预测整体预后,以及是否存在其他预测因素(国际功能、残疾和健康分类第二版[ICIDH - 2]水平、疼痛、工作能力丧失)。关于肌肉骨骼疾病患者康复中整体预后预测可能性的数据很少。所有552例患者均与康复团队的每位成员会面,并在头两天内在康复会议上讨论了每位患者的关键数据。在研究开始时,一位PMR专科的主任医师评估了患者的关键数据,这些数据按照ICIDH - 2(国际功能、残疾和健康分类[ICF])进行结构化,并在0至10的量表上进行定量评估。其次,PMR医师根据ICIDH - 2和其他关键数据,以及既定的康复目标(见表2)对预期的整体预后进行评分。与此同时,患者和一名助理医生(AD)评估疼痛评分(视觉模拟评分法[VAS]0 - 10)和实际工作能力丧失百分比。这些评估在头3天内完成,并在出院前重复进行。结局评估由患者和AD分别按照上述量表进行评分。计算了不同的回归模型,以寻找众多变量之间的显著差异。在回归模型中,对结局的最佳预测指标是PMR医师的评估。在描述性模型中,预测与结局之间的完全和良好对应率分别为71.4%(分别为42.1%和29.3%)。定量评估的ICIDH - 2水平、入院时的疼痛和入院时的工作能力丧失不是整体结局的预测因素。患者将79.0%的病例的整体结局评为非常好/好;AD将75.1%的病例评为非常好/好;患者将13.9%的病例评为中等;AD将18.4%的病例评为中等;患者将7.1%的病例评为差/恶化;AD将6.5%的病例评为差/恶化。患者和AD对结局的评分在87.6%的病例中完全和良好对应,仅在2.6%的病例中无对应。疼痛可显著降低(P<0.001)。结局质量与疼痛缓解之间存在高度显著的相关性(结局“非常好”和“好”,P<0.001;“中等”,P = 0.003;“差/恶化”,无显著性)。30%的患者工作能力丧失部分或完全减轻。这对整体结局没有统计学影响;持续的工作能力丧失也没有影响。基于团队的PMR评估对整体结局的预测似乎是一种具有高预测价值的有用半定量方法。该方法,包括验证的关键点,目前正在广泛讨论。预测是一个基于多专业康复团队的高信息等级、ICIDH - 2结构、康复目标的定义、生物心理社会医学的知识和经验以及常识应用的综合过程。患者/AD对整体结局的评分也是一个综合过程。疼痛缓解是一个重要且非常有力的因素,对肌肉骨骼康复中的整体结局有高度影响,可能是通过改善生活质量。工作能力丧失不是拒绝患者康复的理由,工作能力的改善和持续的工作能力丧失对整体结局均无统计学影响。最后,ICIDH - 2四个水平的程度,尤其是负面背景因素,没有预测性,即在本研究中它们对整体结局没有显著影响。总之,由PMR专科的团队主任医师对整体结局进行预测具有高预测价值,对康复过程、质量保证、保险公司和卫生政策而言是可行且有用的。据我们所知,这是关于该主题的首次发表研究。