National Resource Centre for Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Scand J Rheumatol. 2012 Feb;41(1):20-8. doi: 10.3109/03009742.2011.601757. Epub 2011 Nov 23.
To provide a thorough description of team rehabilitation care and compare the structure, process, and outcomes in two specialized arthritis rehabilitation settings.
Patients with inflammatory arthritis scheduled for inpatient rehabilitation in seven specialized rehabilitation centres and three rheumatology hospital departments in Norway were included consecutively in a prospective cohort study. Patients completed questionnaires at admission, at discharge, and at a 6-month follow-up, and kept a diary regarding structure and process variables during the rehabilitation stay.
Eighty patients in rehabilitation centres and 73 in hospital departments were included and 80% responded to the 6-month follow-up questionnaire. The two clinical settings differed significantly with regard to structure variables such as cost, referral of patients, length of stay, and number of health professionals involved, and most process variables reflecting treatment modalities. The most remarkable difference was in the amount of individual intervention compared with group intervention. Despite significant improvements in most outcomes at discharge, the scores deteriorated towards baseline level 6 months later. There was a trend towards more significant improvement during rehabilitation for patients at rehabilitation centres whereas patients at hospitals had more prolonged improvement.
Team rehabilitation for inflammatory arthritis in two different clinical settings differed across most variables for structure and process, but few significant differences in outcome were found. Considering the substantial differences in cost, there is an urgent need for consensus concerning which patients should receive rehabilitation in which setting. Future research on the development and evaluation of methods for prolonging the beneficial effects of rehabilitation is needed.
全面描述团队康复护理,并比较两种专业关节炎康复环境中的结构、过程和结果。
连续纳入挪威 7 家专门康复中心和 3 家风湿病医院科室的炎症性关节炎住院康复患者。患者在入院时、出院时和 6 个月随访时完成问卷,并在康复期间记录结构和过程变量的日记。
纳入 80 名康复中心患者和 73 名医院科室患者,80%对 6 个月随访问卷做出回应。这两个临床环境在结构变量方面存在显著差异,如成本、患者转诊、住院时间和涉及的卫生专业人员数量,以及反映治疗方式的大多数过程变量。最显著的差异是个体干预与群体干预的数量。尽管出院时大多数结果显著改善,但 6 个月后评分向基线水平恶化。康复中心患者的康复过程中呈现出改善趋势,而医院患者的改善时间更长。
两种不同临床环境中针对炎症性关节炎的团队康复在结构和过程方面存在大多数变量的差异,但在结果方面发现的差异并不显著。考虑到成本存在显著差异,迫切需要就哪些患者应在何种环境中接受康复达成共识。未来需要对延长康复效果的方法的开发和评估进行研究。