Department of General Practice/General Practice Research Unit, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, PO Box 1130, Oslo, Blindern, N-0318, Norway.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Nov 14;12:400. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-400.
The optimal setting and content of primary health care rehabilitation of older people is not known. Our aim was to study independence, institutionalization, death and treatment costs 18 months after primary care rehabilitation of older people in two different settings.
Eighteen months follow-up of an open, prospective study comparing the outcome of multi-disciplinary rehabilitation of older people, in a structured and intensive Primary care dedicated inpatient rehabilitation (PCDIR, n=202) versus a less structured and less intensive Primary care nursing home rehabilitation (PCNHR, n=100).
302 patients, disabled from stroke, hip-fracture, osteoarthritis and other chronic diseases, aged ≥65years, assessed to have a rehabilitation potential and being referred from general hospital or own residence.
Primary: Independence, assessed by Sunnaas ADL Index(SI). Secondary: Hospital and short-term nursing home length of stay (LOS); institutionalization, measured by institutional residence rate; death; and costs of rehabilitation and care. Statistical tests: T-tests, Correlation tests, Pearson's χ2, ANCOVA, Regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses.
Overall SI scores were 26.1 (SD 7.2) compared to 27.0 (SD 5.7) at the end of rehabilitation, a statistically, but not clinically significant reduction (p=0.003 95%CI(0.3-1.5)). The PCDIR patients scored 2.2points higher in SI than the PCNHR patients, adjusted for age, gender, baseline MMSE and SI scores (p=0.003, 95%CI(0.8-3.7)). Out of 49 patients staying >28 days in short-term nursing homes, PCNHR-patients stayed significantly longer than PCDIR-patients (mean difference 104.9 days, 95%CI(0.28-209.6), p=0.05). The institutionalization increased in PCNHR (from 12%-28%, p=0.001), but not in PCDIR (from 16.9%-19.3%, p= 0.45). The overall one year mortality rate was 9.6%. Average costs were substantially higher for PCNHR versus PCDIR. The difference per patient was 3528€ for rehabilitation (p<0.001, 95%CI(2455-4756)), and 10134€ for the at-home care (p=0.002, 95%CI(4066-16202)). The total costs of rehabilitation and care were 18702€ (=1.6 times) higher for PCNHR than for PCDIR.
At 18 months follow-up the PCDIR-patients maintained higher levels of independence, spent fewer days in short-term nursing homes, and did not increase the institutionalization compared to PCNHR. The costs of rehabilitation and care were substantially lower for PCDIR. More communities should consider adopting the PCDIR model.
Clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT01457300.
老年人初级保健康复的最佳设置和内容尚不清楚。我们的目的是研究在两种不同环境下老年人初级保健康复 18 个月后的独立性、机构化、死亡和治疗费用。
对多学科康复老年人的结果进行 18 个月的开放性前瞻性研究,比较结构密集的初级保健专用住院康复(PCDIR,n=202)与结构不那么密集和不那么密集的初级保健养老院康复(PCNHR,n=100)。
302 名年龄≥65 岁的残疾患者,因中风、髋部骨折、骨关节炎和其他慢性疾病而接受评估,并具有康复潜力,来自综合医院或自己的住所。
独立性,采用 Sunnaas ADL 指数(SI)评估。次要结局指标:医院和短期养老院的住院时间(LOS);机构化,通过机构居住率来衡量;死亡;以及康复和护理的费用。统计检验:T 检验、相关性检验、Pearson χ2、ANCOVA、回归和 Kaplan-Meier 分析。
总体而言,SI 评分为 26.1(SD 7.2),而康复结束时为 27.0(SD 5.7),统计学上有显著差异(p=0.003,95%CI(0.3-1.5))。PCDIR 患者的 SI 评分比 PCNHR 患者高 2.2 分,调整年龄、性别、基线 MMSE 和 SI 评分后(p=0.003,95%CI(0.8-3.7))。在 49 名在短期养老院停留超过 28 天的患者中,PCNHR 患者的停留时间明显长于 PCDIR 患者(平均差异 104.9 天,95%CI(0.28-209.6),p=0.05)。PCNHR 的机构化程度增加(从 12%增加到 28%,p=0.001),但 PCDIR 没有增加(从 16.9%增加到 19.3%,p=0.45)。总体一年死亡率为 9.6%。PCNHR 患者的平均康复费用和家庭护理费用均明显高于 PCDIR 患者。每位患者的康复费用差异为 3528 欧元(p<0.001,95%CI(2455-4756)),家庭护理费用差异为 10134 欧元(p=0.002,95%CI(4066-16202))。与 PCDIR 相比,PCNHR 的康复和护理总费用高出 18702 欧元(1.6 倍)。
在 18 个月的随访中,与 PCNHR 相比,PCDIR 患者的独立性水平更高,在短期养老院的住院天数更少,并且机构化程度没有增加。PCDIR 的康复和护理费用要低得多。更多的社区应该考虑采用 PCDIR 模式。
Clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT01457300。