Posts Tagged neurologic injuries

[Abstract + References] The Transformation of the Rehabilitation Paradigm Across the Continuum of Care – PM&R

Posted by Kostas Pantremenos in REHABILITATION on October 9, 2018

Abstract

As healthcare continues to evolve, there are changes in the delivery of care for patients with severe neurologic injuries. Although the acute hospital stay is shortening, physiatrists can play a key role in preparing patients for rehabilitation, minimizing longer-term complications and helping to determine the most appropriate paths for further treatment. Inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) continue to be an important part of the care continuum for patients with severe injuries, but the role of IRFs has also evolved as patients have been admitted with increasing medical and neurologic complexity and length of stay continues to be reduced. Skilled nursing facilities and subacute facilities continue to evolve, in part to fill the gaps that have developed for patients who are “not yet ready for rehabilitation” and for those whose recovery trajectory has been deemed too slow for IRF. Outpatient care is also changing, in part due to the availability of new rehabilitation interventions as highlighted in other sections of the supplement. Furthermore, telemedicine will provide additional options for expanding specialized care beyond prior geographical limitations. Physiatrists need to be aware of these ongoing changes and the roles that they can play outside of the traditional IRF model of care. This article will focus on the innovations in healthcare delivery and opportunities to maximize outcomes in the current and future models of care.

 

References

  1. Reinstein, L., Foto, M.E., Granger, C.V. et al, Sample Screening Criteria for Review of Admissions to Comprehensive Medical Rehabilitation Hospitals. American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Chicago, IL; 1978.
  2. Medical Payment Advisory Commission. MedPAC Report to Congress: Medicare Payment Policy, March 14, 2014, p 65..

  3. Medical Payment Advisory Commission. MedPAC Report to Congress: Medicare Payment Policy. 2003..

  4. CMS adopts inpatient rehabilitation facility coverage requirements (2009, July 31). Available athttps://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Fact-sheets/2009-Fact-sheets-items/2009-07-314.html..

  5. Medical Payment Advisory Commission. MedPAC Report to Congress: Medicare Payment Policy, 2008..

  6. Medical Payment Advisory Commission. MedPAC Report to Congress: Post-Acute Care Reform, February 17, 2014..

  7. DaVanzo, J.E., El Gamil, A., Li, J.W., Shimer, M., Manolov, N., Dobson, A. Assessment of patient outcomes of rehabilitative care provided in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) and after discharge. Final Report 13-127. Dobson, DaVanzo and Associates, LLC, Vienna, VA; 2014.
  8. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (Report to the Congress). Medicare Payment Policy. July 2018..

  9. Medical Payment Advisory Commission. MedPAC Report to Congress: Medicare and the Health Care Delivery System, June 2014, 93-119..

  10. DeJong, G., Tian, W., Hsieh, C.H. et al, Rehospitalization in the first year of traumatic spinal cord injury after discharge from medical rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94:S87–S97.
  11. Hammond, F.M., Horn, S.D., Smout, R.J. et al, Rehospitalization during 9 months after inpatient rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96:S330–S339.
  12. Guo, Y., Persyn, L., Palmer, J.L., Bruera, E. Incidence of and risk factors for transferring cancer patients from rehabilitation to acute care units. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;87:647–653.
  13. Truong, A.D., Fan, E., Brower, R.G., Needham, D.M. Bench-to-bedside review: mobilizing patients in the intensive care unit—from pathophysiology to clinical trials. Crit Care. 2009;13:216.
  14. Lord, R.K., Mayhew, C.R., Korupolu, R. et al, ICU early physical rehabilitation programs: financial modeling of cost savings. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:717–724.
  15. Giacino, J.T., Whyte, J., Bagiella, E. et al, Placebo-controlled trial of amantadine for severe traumatic brain injury. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:819–826.
  16. Granger, C.V., Markello, S.J., Graham, J.E., Deutsch, A., Reistetter, T.A., Ottenbacher, K.J. The uniform data system for medical rehabilitation report of patients with traumatic brain injury discharged from rehabilitation programs in 2000–2007. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;89:265–278.
  17. National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center, Facts and Figures at a Glance. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; 2015.
  18. Shoolin, J.S. Clinical decision support and the electronic health record—Applications for physiatry. PM&R. 2017;9:S34–S40.
  19. Stefanacci, R.G. Admission criteria for facility-based post-acute services. Ann Long-Term Care Clin Care Aging. 2015;23:18–20.
  21. Alcusky, M., Ulbricht, C.M., Lapane, K.L. Post acute care setting, facility characteristics, and post stroke outcomes: A systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99:1124–1140.
  22. Werner, R.M., Konetzka, R.T. Trends in post-acute care use among Medicare beneficiaries: 2000-2015. J Am Med Assoc. 2018;319:1616–1617.
  23. Xian, Y., Thomas, L., Liang, L. et al, Unexplained variation for hospitals’ use of inpatient rehabilitation and skilled nursing facilities after an acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2017;48:2836–2842.
  24. Stein, J., Bettger, J.P., Sicklick, A., Hedeman, R., Magdon-Ismail, Z., Schwamm, L.H. Use of a standardized assessment to predict rehabilitation care after acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96:210–217.
  25. Parmanto, B., Saptono, A. Telerehabilitation: State-of-the-art from an informatics perspective. Int J Telerehabil. 2009;1:73–84.
  26. Dinesen, B., Haesum, L.K.E., Soerensen, N. et al, Using preventive home monitoring to reduce hospital admission rates and reduce costs: A case study of telehealth among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. J Telemed Telecare. 2012;18:221–225.
  27. Piotrowicz, E., Baranowski, R., Bilinska, M. et al, A new model of home-based telemonitored cardiac rehabilitation in patients with heart failure: Effectiveness, quality of life, and adherence. Eur J Heart Fail. 2010;12:164–171.
  28. Dobkin, B.H., Dorsch, A.K. The evolution of personalized behavioral intervention technology: Will it change how we measure or deliver rehabilitation?. Stroke. 2017;48:2329–2334.
  29. Ackerman, M.J., Filart, R., Burgess, L.P., Lee, I., Poropatich, R.K. Developing next-generation telehealth tools and technologies: patients, systems, and data perspectives. Telemed J E Health. 2010;16:93–95.
  30. Chen, J., Jin, W., Zhang, X.X., Xu, W., Liu, X.N., Ren, C.C. Telerehabilitation approaches for stroke patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2015;24:2660–2668.
  31. Fortune, E., Lugade, V., Morrow, M., Kaufman, K. Validity of using tri-axial accelerometers to measure human movement—Part II: Step counts at a wide range of gait velocities. Med Eng Phys. 2014;36:659–669.
  32. Peretti, A., Amenta, F., Tayebati, S.K., Nittari, G., Mahdi, S.S. Telerehabilitation: Review of the state-of-the-art and areas of application. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;4:1–9.
  33. Larson, E.B., Feigon, M., Gagliardo, P., Dvorkin, A.Y. Virtual reality and cognitive rehabilitation: a review of current outcome research. NeuroRehabil. 2014;34:759–772.
  34. Rose, F.D., Brooks, B.M., Rizzo, A.A. Virtual reality in brain damage rehabilitation: review.Cyberpsychol Behav. 2005;8:241–262.
  35. Jagos, H., David, V., Haller, M. et al, A framework for (tele-) monitoring of the rehabilitation progress in stroke patients: eHealth 2015 special issue. Appl Clin Inform. 2015;6:757–768.
  36. Linder, S.M., Rosenfeldt, A.B., Bay, R.C., Sahu, K., Wolf, S.L., Alberts, J.L. Improving quality of life and depression after stroke through telerehabilitation. Am J Occup Ther. 2015;69:1–10.
  37. Rasmussen, R.S., Ostergaard, A., Kjaer, P. et al, Stroke rehabilitation at home before and after discharge reduced disability and improved quality of life: A randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2016;30:225–236.

via The Transformation of the Rehabilitation Paradigm Across the Continuum of Care – PM&R

, , , ,

Leave a comment

[A REVIEW] State-of-the-art robotic gait rehabilitation orthoses: Design and control aspects

Posted by Kostas Pantremenos in Gait Rehabilitation - Foot Drop, Rehabilitation robotics on October 23, 2014

BACKGROUND: Robot assisted gait training is a rapidly evolving rehabilitation practice. Various robotic orthoses have been developed during the past two decades for the gait training of patients suffering from neurologic injuries. These robotic orthoses can provide systematic gait training and reduce the work load of physical therapists. Biomechanical gait parameters can also be recorded and analysed more precisely as compared to manual physical therapy.

OBJECTIVES: A review of robotic orthoses developed for providing gait training of neurologically impaired patients is provided in this paper.

METHODS: Recent developments in the mechanism design and actuation methods of these robotic gait training orthoses are presented. Control strategies developed for these robotic gait training orthoses in the recent years are also discussed in detail. These control strategies have the capability to provide customised gait training according to the disability level and stage of rehabilitation of neurologically impaired subjects.

RESULTS: A detailed discussion regarding the mechanism design, actuation and control strategies with potential developments and improvements is provided at the end of the paper.

CONCLUSIONS: A number of robotic orthoses and novel control strategies have been developed to provide gait training according to the disability level of patients and have shown encouraging results. There is a need to develop improved robotic mechanisms, actuation methods and control strategies that can provide naturalistic gait patterns, safe human-robot interaction and customized gait training, respectively. Extensive clinical trials need to be carried out to ascertain the efficacy of these robotic rehabilitation orthoses.

via State-of-the-art robotic gait rehabilitation orthoses: Design and control aspects – NeuroRehabilitation – IOS Press.

, , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] State-of-the-art robotic gait rehabilitation orthoses: Design and control aspects

Posted by Kostas Pantremenos in Gait Rehabilitation - Foot Drop, Rehabilitation robotics on October 23, 2014

A number of robotic orthoses and novel control strategies have been developed to provide gait training according to the disability level of patients and have shown encouraging results. There is a need to develop improved robotic mechanisms, actuation methods and control strategies that can provide naturalistic gait patterns, safe human-robot interaction and customized gait training, respectively. Extensive clinical trials need to be carried out to ascertain the efficacy of these robotic rehabilitation orthoses.

via State-of-the-art robotic gait rehabilitation orthoses: Design and control aspects – NeuroRehabilitation – IOS Press.

, , , ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: