Posts Tagged Outcome and process assessment

[ARTICLE] A Systematic Review of International Clinical Guidelines for Rehabilitation of People With Neurological Conditions: What Recommendations Are Made for Upper Limb Assessment? – Full Text

Background: Upper limb impairment is a common problem for people with neurological disabilities, affecting activity, performance, quality of life, and independence. Accurate, timely assessments are required for effective rehabilitation, and development of novel interventions. International consensus on upper limb assessment is needed to make research findings more meaningful, provide a benchmark for quality in clinical practice, more cost-effective neurorehabilitation and improved outcomes for neurological patients undergoing rehabilitation.

Aim: To conduct a systematic review, as part of the output of a European COST Action, to identify what recommendations are made for upper limb assessment.

Methods: We systematically reviewed published guidance on measures and protocols for assessment of upper limb function in neurological rehabilitation via electronic databases from January 2007–December 2017. Additional records were then identified through other sources. Records were selected for inclusion based on scanning of titles, abstracts and full text by two authors working independently, and a third author if there was disagreement. Records were included if they referred to “rehabilitation” and “assessment” or “measurement”. Reasons for exclusion were documented.

Results: From the initial 552 records identified (after duplicates were removed), 34 satisfied our criteria for inclusion, and only six recommended specific outcome measures and /or protocols. Records were divided into National Guidelines and other practice guidelines published in peer reviewed Journals. There was agreement that assessment is critical, should be conducted early and at regular intervals and that there is a need for standardized measures. Assessments should be conducted by a healthcare professional trained in using the measure and should encompass body function and structure, activity and participation.

Conclusions: We present a comprehensive, critical, and original summary of current recommendations. Defining a core set of measures and agreed protocols requires international consensus between experts representing the diverse and multi-disciplinary field of neurorehabilitation including clinical researchers and practitioners, rehabilitation technology researchers, and commercial developers. Current lack of guidance may hold-back progress in understanding function and recovery. Together with a Delphi consensus study and an overview of systematic reviews of outcome measures it will contribute to the development of international guidelines for upper limb assessment in neurological conditions.

Introduction

Worldwide prevalence of stroke in 2010 was 33 million, with 16.9 million people having a first stroke, of which 795,000 were American and 1.1 million European (1). It has been estimated that approximately one third of people fail to regain upper limb capacity, despite receiving therapy (2). This has important implications for both individuals and the wider society as reduced upper limb function is associated with dependence and poor quality of life for both patients and carers (35) and impacts on national economies (6).

While stroke has the highest prevalence, other neurological conditions such as Multiple Sclerosis (MS), Spinal Cord Injury (SCI), and Traumatic Brian Injury, have a significant incidence and there are often similarities in presentation, and treatment and therefore assessment. The worldwide incidence of SCI is 40–80 cases per million population and the estimated European mean annual rate of MS incidence is 4.3 cases per 100,000 (7). Recently, Kister et al. (8) reported that 60% of people with MS have impaired hand function. The impact of upper limb dysfunction on ADL is higher than in stroke, as both sides are often affected (9). Although dysfunction after SCI depends on level of injury, upper limb function is consistently cited as a health priority. The incidence rate of TBI in Europe is about 235 per 100,000 population (10). Outcome data among European countries are very heterogeneous. From the US however, it is known that about 1.1% of the population suffer a TBI resulting in long term disability (11).

 

Continue —>  Frontiers | A Systematic Review of International Clinical Guidelines for Rehabilitation of People With Neurological Conditions: What Recommendations Are Made for Upper Limb Assessment? | Neurology

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[REVIEW] A review of international clinical guidelines for rehabilitation of people with neurological conditions: what recommendations are made for upper limb assessment?

Background: Upper limb impairment is a common problem for people with neurological disabilities, affecting activity, performance, quality of life and independence. Accurate, timely assessments are required for effective rehabilitation, and development of novel interventions. International consensus on upper limb assessment is needed to make research findings be more meaningful, provide a benchmark for quality in clinical practice, more cost-effective neurorehabilitation and improved outcomes for neurological patients undergoing rehabilitation.

Aim: To conduct a systematic review, as part of the output of a European COST Action, to identify what recommendations are made for upper limb assessment.

Methods: We systematically reviewed published guidance on measures and protocols for assessing upper limb function in neurological rehabilitation via electronic databases from January 2007 – December 2017. Additional records were then identified through other sources. Records were selected for inclusion based on scanning of titles, abstracts and full text by two authors working independently, and a third author if there was disagreement. Records were included if they referred to ‘rehabilitation’ and ‘assessment’ or ‘measurement’. Reasons for exclusion were documented.
Results: From the initial 552 records identified (after duplicates were removed), 34 satisfied our criteria for inclusion and only six recommended specific outcome measures and /or protocols. Records were divided into National Guidelines and other practice guidelines published in peer reviewed Journals. There was agreement that assessment is critical, should be conducted early and at regular intervals and that there is a need for standardised measures. Assessments should be conducted by a healthcare professional trained in using the measure and should encompass body function and structure, activity and participation.
Conclusions: We present a comprehensive, critical and original summary of current recommendations. Defining a core set of measures and agreed protocols requires international consensus between experts representing the diverse and multi-disciplinary field of neurorehabilitation including clinical researchers and practitioners, rehabilitation technology researchers and commercial developers. Current lack of guidance may hold-back progress in understanding function and recovery. Together with a Delphi consensus study and an overview of systematic reviews of outcome measures it will contribute to the development of international guidelines for upper limb assessment in neurological conditions.

 

via Frontiers | A review of international clinical guidelines for rehabilitation of people with neurological conditions: what recommendations are made for upper limb assessment? | Neurology

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Technologically-advanced assessment of upper-limb spasticity: a pilot study – Full Text PDF

BACKGROUND: Spasticity is a muscle disorder associated with upper motor neuron syndrome occurring in neurological disorders, such as stroke, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury and others. It influences the patient’s rehabilitation, interfering with function, limiting independence, causing pain and producing secondary impairments, such as contractures or other complications. Due to the heterogeneity of clinical signs of spasticity, there is no agreement on the most appropriate assessment and measurement modality for the evaluation of treatment outcomes.

AIM: The aim of this article is to propose the use of new robotic devices for upper-limb spasticity assessment and describe the most relevant measures of spasticity which could be automatically assessed by using a technologically advanced device.

DESIGN: Observational pilot study.

SETTING: The treatment was provided in a Rehabilitation Centre where the device was located and the subjects were treated in an outpatients setting.

POPULATION: Five post-stroke patients, age range 19-79 years (mean age 61, standard deviation [SD]±25) in their chronic phase.

METHODS: A new robotic device able to automatically assess upper-limb spasticity during passive and active mobilization has been developed. The elbow spasticity of five post stroke patients has been assessed by using the new device and by means of the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS). After the first assessment, subjects were treated with botulin toxin injections, and then underwent 10 sessions of robotic treatments. After the treatment, subjects spasticity was assessed by using the robotic device and the MAS Score.

RESULTS: In four out of five patients, the botulin toxin injection and robotic treatment resulted in the improvement of the MAS Score; in three patients the robotic measures were able to detect the MAS changes. In one subject botulin toxin was not effective and the robotic device was able to detect the lack of effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS: By using the robotic device some spasticity parameters can be continuously recorded during the rehabilitation treatment in order to objectively measure the effectiveness of the interventions provided.

CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: The standardized evaluation parameters recorded using robotic devices may provide several advantages: 1) the measures for spasticity assessment can be monitored during every rehabilitation session (even during each movement); 2) these measurements are able to highlight even small changes; 3) the recovery plateau can be detected early thus avoiding further rehabilitation sessions; and 4) these measurements can reduce the assessment bias in multicenter studies.

Full Text PDF

via Technologically-advanced assessment of upper-limb spasticity: a pilot study – European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2018 August;54(4):536-44 – Minerva Medica – Journals

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: