|
Consistent evaluation of treatment outcomes across subacute and community settings: experience of the Graduated Discharge Program
Svetlana
Umansky
A
D
,
Anne E.
Holland
A
B
,
Kerryn L.
Woolley
A
,
Frances M.
Wise
A
C
and
Peter C.
Hunter
A
A
Alfred Health, Caulfield Hospital, 260 Kooyong Road, Caulfield, VIC 3162, Australia. Email: a.holland@alfred.org.au; k.woolley@cgmc.org.au; peter.hunter@cgmc.org.au
B
La Trobe University, Physiotherapy Department, Bundoora, VIC 3086, Australia.
C
Epworth Monash Rehabilitation Medicine Unit, Epworth Hospital, Richmond, VIC 3121, Australia. Email: f.wise@cgmc.org.au
D
Corresponding author. Email: s.umansky@cgmc.org.au
Australian Health Review
35(4)
486-490 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AH10956
Submitted: 20 August 2010 Accepted: 31 January 2011 Published:
30
September
2011
|  |
|
|
Abstract
Objective.
Although mounting evidence suggests that early supporting discharge has benefits for both patients and the health service, such programs pose unique challenges for rigorous assessment of treatment outcomes. The aim of this study was to describe assessment of clinical outcomes in the Graduated Discharge Program (GDP) across hospital and community settings. Methods.
The GDP involved substitution of community-based rehabilitation for the last week of inpatient care. A consensus group of hospital and community rehabilitation professionals chose the Timed Up and Go (TUAG) test as the primary clinical outcome that would be assessed across settings, with data stored in the community. We recorded the consistency of test performance across settings and readmission rates. Results.
At hospital admission TUAG results were available for 82% of participants, compared to 94% at subacute discharge, 89% at end of GDP and 77% at end of community rehabilitation. Seat height during testing did not remain consistent across settings; however, significant improvements in TUAG were seen over time. There was no increase in readmission rate during the GDP. Conclusions.
By involving members of the treating team in decisions about outcome assessment and data storage it was possible to reliably document clinical outcomes across multiple settings of care.
|
References
[1]
Brady BK, McGahan L, Skidmore B.
Systematic review of economic evidence on stroke rehabilitation services.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005
; 21: 15–21.
|
CrossRef |
[2]
Iyengar KP, Nadkarni JB, Ivanovic N, Mahale A.
Targeted early rehabilitation at home after total hip and knee joint replacement: does it work?
Disabil Rehabil 2007
; 29: 495–502.
|
CrossRef |
[3]
Caplan GA, Coconis J, Board N, Sayers A, Woods J.
Does home treatment affect delirium? A randomised controlled trial of rehabilitation of elderly and care at home or usual treatment (The REACH-OUT trial).
Age Ageing 2006
; 35: 53–60.
|
CrossRef |
[4]
Donnelly M, Power M, Russel M, Fullerton K.
Randomized controlled trial of an early discharge rehabilitation service.
Stroke 2004
; 35: 127–33.
|
CrossRef |
[5]
Podsiadlo D, Richardson S.
The timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons.
J Am Geriatr Soc 1991
; 39: 142–8.
[6]
Robinson BC.
Validation of caregivers strain index.
J Gerontol 1983
; 38: 344–8.
[7]
Mahoney JE, Palta M, Jalaliddin M, Gray S, Park S, Sager M.
Temporal association between hospitalization and rate of falls after discharge.
Arch Intern Med 2000
; 160: 2788–95.
|
CrossRef |
e-Alerts
Connect with AHR
