Minimum data and core outcomes for subacute rehabilitation: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: In clinical practice and research, standardised sets of data and outcomes are routinely collected to facilitate data comparison, benchmarking and quality improvement. Most existing data sets are condition-specific and cannot be applied to all patients in a given clinical setting. This review aimed to determine whether the development of a minimum data set for subacute rehabilitation is feasible by collating and comparing existing rehabilitation minimum data sets and core outcome sets. DATA SOURCES: Published literature was identified through database searches (Scopus, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and the COMET Initiative) in September 2021. Additional data sets were identified through a grey literature search. REVIEW METHODS: This review was conducted in alignment with the PRISMA-ScR recommendations. Datasets were included if they were published in English, designed for adults, and intended for use in subacute rehabilitation. Data were extracted and taxonomically organised to identify commonalities. Items present in ≥50% of data sets were considered common. RESULTS: Twenty minimum data sets and seven core outcome sets were included. There were 29 common minimum data set domains, with 19 relating to Patient Information, seven relating to Outcomes, two relating to Service Delivery and one relating to Provider Demographics. Four common domains were identified within the Core Outcome Set analysis, which all related to Life Impact, specifically Physical Functioning (86%), Emotional Functioning/Wellbeing (57%), Social Functioning (86%) and Global Quality of Life (100%). CONCLUSION: Common item domains in conditions requiring subacute rehabilitation have been identified, suggesting that development of a dataset for subacute rehabilitation may be feasible.

Development of a minimum dataset for subacute rehabilitation: a three-round e-Delphi consensus study.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a minimum dataset to be routinely collected across a heterogenous population within a subacute rehabilitation service to guide best care and outcomes for patients, and value for the health service. DESIGN: Three-round e-Delphi exercise, followed by consensus meetings. SETTING: Multicentre study in Brisbane, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Rehabilitation decision-makers, researchers and clinicians were invited to participate in the e-Delphi exercise. A multidisciplinary project steering committee (rehabilitation decision makers, researchers, clinicians and consumers) participated in consensus meetings. METHODS: In round 1 of the e-Delphi, participants responded to an open-ended question, generating data and outcomes that should be routinely collected in rehabilitation. In rounds 2 and 3, participants rated the importance of collecting each item on a nine-point scale. Consensus was defined a priori, as items rated as 'essential' by at least 70%, and of 'limited importance' by less than 15%, of respondents. Consensus meetings were held to further refine and define the dataset for implementation. RESULTS: In total, 38 participants completed round 1 of the e-Delphi. Qualitative content analysis of their responses generated 1072 codes, which were condensed into 39 categories and 209 subcategories. Following two rounds of rating (round 2: n=32 participants; round 3: n=28 participants), consensus was reached for 124 items. Four consensus meetings (n=14 participants) resulted in the final dataset which included 42 items across six domains: (1) patient demographics, (2) premorbid health and psychosocial information, (3) admission information, (4) service delivery and interventions, (5) outcomes and (6) caregiver information and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 42 items that reflect the values and experiences of rehabilitation stakeholders. Items unique to this dataset include caregiver information and outcomes, and detailed service delivery and intervention data. Future research will establish the feasibility of collection in practice.