1 / 27

Brain Injury Rehabilitation Science, Efficacy, and Service Delivery Models

Brain Injury Rehabilitation Science, Efficacy, and Service Delivery Models. David X. Cifu, M.D. Co-Director, NIDRR TBI Model Systems Co-Director, Brain Injury Rehab Services VCU/MCV. Treatment Controversy. Rehabilitation services for TBI are extremely expensive (up to $1500/day).

tex
Download Presentation

Brain Injury Rehabilitation Science, Efficacy, and Service Delivery Models

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. Brain Injury Rehabilitation Science, Efficacy, and Service Delivery Models David X. Cifu, M.D. Co-Director, NIDRR TBI Model Systems Co-Director, Brain Injury Rehab Services VCU/MCV

  2. Treatment Controversy • Rehabilitation services for TBI are extremely expensive (up to $1500/day). • Providing the least amount of therapy services that are effective will maximize the efficiency of rehabilitation resources. • Optimizing treatment settings to the least restrictive environment respects the rights of the disabled individual.

  3. Treatment Controversy • Treatment teams typically find interdisciplinary settings and services the easiest to work in. • Greater intensities of services are often advocated to decrease lengths of stay.

  4. Treatment Controversy • Increasingly, data exist on the efficacy of specialized treatment settings, types of therapy, and intensity of services. • Providing the optimal dosing, type, and setting of rehabilitation services should improve outcomes and efficiencies.

  5. Components of Rehabilitation • Specificity (Generalized Therapy, Focused Therapy, Dedicated Team, Team Composition) • Setting (InPatient, Day, Transitional, Outpatient, Home Health) • Intensity (Therapy, InPatient vs.. Subacute)

  6. Measures of Efficacy • Functional Improvement • Return to Home • Cost Benefit • Return to Work • Quality of Life

  7. Standardizing Treatments • NICHD/NIH TBI Network Sites project • 8 clinical sites with 100+ moderate and severe TBI’s/yr • Manage all patients within “strict” set of pre-hospital, ER, ICU, Acute Care and Rehab (inpatient and outpatient) guidelines • Standardized, multidimensional outcome measures

  8. Standardizing Treatments • Timing, intensity and specificity of all rehab interventions must be standardized. • PT, OT, SLP, Psychology • Medications • Goal will be to assess efficacy of specific interventions by systematically altering them and monitoring outcomes.

  9. Treatment Efficacy: Stroke • 22 randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that after stroke, interdisciplinary vs multidisciplinary team care results in decreased mortality, dependency, and nursing home placement. Langhorne Lancet 342:1993 Ottenbacher Arch Neurol 5:1993 • Interdisciplinary acute rehabilitation shown superior to SNF or custodial NH. Kramer JAMA 277;1997

  10. Treatment Specificity: Coma • Directed Multisensory Stimulation (DMS) demonstrated superior (increased responsiveness, improved RLAS, improved GCS) versus Non-Directed Stimulation (NDS) in RLAS II patients Hall:Brain Injury 1992:6:435-45

  11. Treatment Specificity: Team • Formal TBI Rehabilitation results in an increased rate of return to the community, decreased utilization of medical services, and decreased disability. Cope:Brain Injury 1995;9:649-70 Bell:Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79S:21-5

  12. Treatment Specificity: Team • Acute rehabilitation utilizing a dedicated TBI program resulted in decreased LOS, improved cognitive skills, and improved return to home rates. Mackay:Arch Phys Med Rehab 1992;73:635-41

  13. Treatment Specificity: Team • Interdisciplinary Team versus Multi-disciplinary Team demonstrated improved functional outcome, maintenance of gains, and reduced caregiver stresses. Semlyen:Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79:678-83

  14. Treatment Setting: Post-Acute • TBI patients >3 months post-injury demonstrated improvement in behavior, physical ability, functional skills, and independent living. Maintained improve-ments 18months post-completion. Malec:Brain Injury 1993;7:15-29 Mills:Brain Injury 1992;6:219-28

  15. Treatment Setting: HMO • Comparison of TBI Rehabilitation provided through an HMO network compared to historical efficacy of non-HMO rehab-ilitation demonstrated similar costs and outcomes. Bryant:J Head Trauma Rehabil 1993;8:15-29

  16. Intensity of Therapy: Coma • Comatose patients receiving structured sensory stimulation in addition to physical therapies and nursing care demonstrated decreased coma duration and improved cognitive skills at 3 months versus those receiving only physical therapies and nursing care. Kater:W J Nursing Res 1989;11:20-33 Mitchell:Brain Injury 1990;4:273-9

  17. Intensity of Therapy: InPatient • Comatose and acute TBI patients receiving greater therapy intensity (by 60%) demonstrated a 31% decrease in length of stay. Blackerby:Brain Injury 1989;4:167-73

  18. Intensity of Therapy: InPatient • Acute TBI patients stratified into high versus low intensity therapy groups demonstrated improved RLAS levels and cognitive skills at discharge. Spivack:Brain Injury 1992;6:419-34

  19. Intensity of Therapy: InPatient • Multiple regression analysis revealed that intensity of PT, OT, and SLP services did not affect outcome, but greater Psychology services intensity resulted in improved cognitive skills at discharge. Heinemann:Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1995;74:315-26

  20. Intensity of Therapy: InPatient • Multiple regression analysis revealed that intensity of PT and OT services did not affect outcome, but greater Psychology services intensity resulted in improved cognition and greater SLP services intensity resulted in improved cognitive and physical skills at discharge. Cifu:Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997;78:1029 (abstract)

  21. Cifu DX, Kreutzer JS, Kolakowsky-Hayner SA, Marwitz JH, Englander J:The relationship between therapy intensity and rehabilitative outcomes after traumatic brain injury: A Multi-Center Analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003 (in press)

  22. Methodology • Consecutive TBI patients >16 years old • All demographic, clinical, and outcome data available. • Assessed the variability of therapy services delivered due to patient and non-patient factors. • Assessed the association between therapy intensity and rehabilitation functional outcomes.

  23. Results • 491 patients enrolled followed for 12 months. • Mean therapy received = 2 hr 55 mins • 65 minutes occupational therapy per day • 54 minutes physical therapy per day • 35 minutes speech therapy per day • 19 minutes psychological services per day • Limited variability in therapy received.

  24. Results: Factors Affecting Intensity • Multiple regression analysis was used to determine if age, functional status at admission, interruption in rehabilitation, length of stay, or onset-admission interval predicted therapy intensity. • PT/OT not affected. • Younger age and lower onset-admission predicted increased psychology service intensity. • Higher admission FIM motor score predicted higher SLP service intensity. • Older age predicted decreased total therapy intensity.

  25. Results: Effect of Intensity • Cognitive outcomes were not affected by therapy intensity. • Increased FIM motor discharge score, FIM motor potential achieved and FIM motor efficiency were predicted by increased speech and physical therapyintensity. • Rehabilitation LOS was not affected by therapy intensity. • Increased rehabilitation charges were predicted by increased physical therapy intensity.

  26. Conclusions • Younger age, shorter acute LOS and higher admission motor scores predicted greater intensity of cognitive services. • Increased speech and physical therapy affect improved motor outcomes.

  27. Rehabilitation Efficacy: Summary • Specificity- Cognitive (Coma) services and structured TBI Team have been shown to improve outcome. • Setting - Post-acute services have been shown to improve outcomes. HMO settings do not decrease outcomes. • Intensity - Greater therapy intensity (e.g. SLP, PT, Psychology) improve outcomes.

More Related