1 / 28

Rehabilitation Challenges for Amputees: A Closer Look at Complex Data

This article examines the increasing complexity of rehabilitating amputees, including factors such as patient health, comorbidities, age, motivation, and socioeconomic status. It also explores predictors of functional outcomes and discusses the importance of data collection for improving rehabilitation outcomes over time.

ryanhunt
Download Presentation

Rehabilitation Challenges for Amputees: A Closer Look at Complex Data

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “REHABBING” AMPUTEES: Caught between AROC and a hard place? Craig Evans Physiotherapist Rankin Park Limb Centre

  2. Is anyone else finding it harder? • Are patients : • More unwell? • More comorbities? • Older? • Less motivated? • Lower socioeconomic groups? • More challenging accommodation? MORE COMPLEX?

  3. DATA?…. AROC!

  4. Data Collection • The AROC data collection compares our Data with similar units and national data • The CORE report should be considered in conjunction with relevant Impairment Specific reports and the Target Outcomes report for your facility • The AROC database is only as good as the quality and completeness of the data that are submitted to it.

  5. Results summarised Admission: • RPC has increased complexity of patients • Increased comorbidities • Increased patients with carer and support • Decreased admission FIM’s Inpatient: • Increased LOS ( Due to external service issues ) • Decreased complications ( RPC good nursing care ) Discharge: • Lower FIM scores • Increased FIM change • Increased services at home but increased discharge to home

  6. Improving data collection over time…

  7. Episodes of care at RPC

  8. FIM change over 10 + years

  9. Average Age change over the years

  10. More FIM data…

  11. Overall admissions

  12. Comorbidities…

  13. So why are our patients “less rehabbable”?

  14. So why are our patients “less rehabbable”? • More complex patients - definitely • Better pre-amputation interventions • Reduced “Life reserve” • Economics: Public vs private • Private insurance – socioeconomics issue reduced • “Rural” – lower SE groups • Motivation?

  15. Better Interventions & “Life Reserve”

  16. Better Interventions & “Life Reserve”

  17. What makes a good rehab candidate?

  18. What makes a good rehab candidate? • Motivation • Potential – physical, cognitive • Support “House, nous and spouse”

  19. What then should be our expectations? • How good should our patients get? • Walking • ADLs • Home Predictors of outcome?

  20. Predictors of function: Taylor et al 2005 • Pre-op factors ?= post-op function / mortality • With view to performing palliative AKA vs functional BKA • >= 70 y.o – 3x or more chance of death, non-ambulatory, non-prosthetic user, functionally dependent within 1 year • Other pre op predictive factors – nonambulatory / transfers only; dementia; coronary artery disease; ESRD

  21. Predictors of function : Schoppen et al (2003) Best predictors: • Age at amputation important for general functioning. • Standing balance on the unaffected limb at 2 weeks post amputation – significant predictor of all functional outcome parameters • Memory +/- mood/cognitive ability • Comorbidity (DM and other but not cardiopulmonary disease) • No social predictors were significant

  22. Predictors of function: Gailey et al, 2002 AMPPRO / AMPnoPRO (Gailey et al, 2002) – more a functional test than a predictor.

  23. Predictors of function : Whyte And Carroll (2004) • Patients with phantom pain (questionnaire, 62% response rate, 315 subjects) Catastrophizing can account for 11% overall level of disability

  24. Predictors of prosthetic non-use: Roffman et al (2014)

  25. What does all this mean for us? Patients are getting more complex, not necessarily older. There are predictors of function to use as a guide. (Need to be more objective? ABF) “Rehabbing” the pre-amputees – vascular rehab?

  26. References: AROC Reports --- John Hunter Hospital (Rankin Park Unit) 2003-2015 Gailey RS, Roach KE, Applegate EB, Cho B, Cunniffe B, Licht S, Maguire M, Nash MS. (2002). “The Amputee Mobility Predictor: an instrument to assess determinants of the lower-limb amputee ability to ambulate.” Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83:613-27. Schoppen T, Boonstra A, Groothoff JW, de Vries J, Go¨eken LN, Eisma WH. (2003) “Physical, mental, and social predictors of functional outcome in unilateral lower-limb amputees.” Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003;84:803-11. Whyte and Carroll (2004). “The relationship between catastrophizing and disability in amputees experiencing phantom pain.” Disability & Rehabilitation 26(11):649-54. Taylor SM et al (2005). “Pre-operative clinical factors predict post-operative functional outcomes after major lower limb amputation: An analysis of 553 consecutive patients” Journal of Vascular Surgery 2005; 42: 227-235 Roffman CE, Buchanan J, Allison GT (2014) “Predictors of non-use of prostheses by people with lower limb amputation after discharge from rehabilitation: development and validation of clinical prediction rules.” Journal of Physiotherapy 60: 224–231

  27. Acknowledgements CNC/CNS at RPC – Merridie Rees, Helen Baines and Judith Dunne Tara and Jackie from AROC

More Related