The Role of Cognitive Factors in Predicting Balance and Fall Risk in a Neuro-Rehabilitation Setting.

INTRODUCTION: There is a consistent body of evidence supporting the role of cognitive functions, particularly executive function, in the elderly and in neurological conditions which become more frequent with ageing. The aim of our study was to assess the role of different domains of cognitive functions to predict balance and fall risk in a sample of adults with various neurological conditions in a rehabilitation setting. METHODS: This was a prospective, cohort study conducted in a single centre in the UK. 114 participants consecutively admitted to a Neuro-Rehabilitation Unit were prospectively assessed for fall accidents. Baseline assessment included a measure of balance (Berg Balance Scale) and a battery of standard cognitive tests measuring executive function, speed of information processing, verbal and visual memory, visual perception and intellectual function. The outcomes of interest were the risk of becoming a faller, balance and fall rate. RESULTS: Two tests of executive function were significantly associated with fall risk, the Stroop Colour Word Test (IRR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.03) and the number of errors on part B of the Trail Making Test (IRR 1.23, 95% CI 1.03-1.49). Composite scores of executive function, speed of information processing and visual memory domains resulted in 2 to 3 times increased likelihood of having better balance (OR 2.74 95% CI 1.08 to 6.94, OR 2.72 95% CI 1.16 to 6.36 and OR 2.44 95% CI 1.11 to 5.35 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that specific subcomponents of executive functions are able to predict fall risk, while a more global cognitive dysfunction is associated with poorer balance.

Assessing quality of care from hospital case notes: comparison of reliability of two methods.

OBJECTIVES: To determine which of the two methods of case note review provide the most useful and reliable information for reviewing quality of care. DESIGN: Retrospective, multiple reviews of 692 case notes were undertaken using both holistic (implicit) and criterion-based (explicit) review methods. Quality measures were evidence-based review criteria and a quality of care rating scale. SETTING: Nine randomly selected acute hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen doctors, 11 specialist nurses and three clinically trained audit staff, and eight non-clinical audit staff. ANALYSIS METHODS: Intrarater consistency, inter-rater reliability between pairs of staff using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), completeness of criterion data capture and between-staff group comparison. RESULTS: A total of 1473 holistic reviews and 1389 criterion-based reviews were undertaken. When the three same staff types reviewed the same record, holistic scale score inter-rater reliability was moderate within each group (ICC 0.46 to 0.52). Inter-rater reliability for criterion-based scores was moderate to good (ICC 0.61 to 0.88). Comparison of holistic review score and criterion-based score of case notes reviewed by doctors and by non-clinical audit staff showed a reasonable level of agreement between the two methods. CONCLUSIONS: Using a holistic approach to review case notes, same staff groups can achieve reasonable repeatability within their professional groups. When the same clinical record was reviewed twice by the doctors, and by the non-clinical audit staff, using both holistic and criterion-based methods, there are close similarities between the quality of care scores generated by the two methods. When using retrospective review of case notes to examine quality of care, a clear view is required of the purpose and the expected outputs of the project.

Comparison of case note review methods for evaluating quality and safety in health care.

OBJECTIVES: To determine which of two methods of case note review--holistic (implicit) and criterion-based (explicit)--provides the most useful and reliable information for quality and safety of care, and the level of agreement within and between groups of health-care professionals when they use the two methods to review the same record. To explore the process-outcome relationship between holistic and criterion-based quality-of-care measures and hospital-level outcome indicators. DATA SOURCES: Case notes of patients at randomly selected hospitals in England. REVIEW METHODS: In the first part of the study, retrospective multiple reviews of 684 case notes were undertaken at nine acute hospitals using both holistic and criterion-based review methods. Quality-of-care measures included evidence-based review criteria and a quality-of-care rating scale. Textual commentary on the quality of care was provided as a component of holistic review. Review teams comprised combinations of: doctors (n = 16), specialist nurses (n = 10) and clinically trained audit staff (n = 3) and non-clinical audit staff (n = 9). In the second part of the study, process (quality and safety) of care data were collected from the case notes of 1565 people with either chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or heart failure in 20 hospitals. Doctors collected criterion-based data from case notes and used implicit review methods to derive textual comments on the quality of care provided and score the care overall. Data were analysed for intrarater consistency, inter-rater reliability between pairs of staff using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and completeness of criterion data capture, and comparisons were made within and between staff groups and between review methods. To explore the process-outcome relationship, a range of publicly available health-care indicator data were used as proxy outcomes in a multilevel analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 1473 holistic and 1389 criterion-based reviews were undertaken in the first part of the study. When same staff-type reviewer pairs/groups reviewed the same record, holistic scale score inter-rater reliability was moderate within each of the three staff groups [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.46-0.52], and inter-rater reliability for criterion-based scores was moderate to good (ICC 0.61-0.88). When different staff-type pairs/groups reviewed the same record, agreement between the reviewer pairs/groups was weak to moderate for overall care (ICC 0.24-0.43). Comparison of holistic review score and criterion-based score of case notes reviewed by doctors and by non-clinical audit staff showed a reasonable level of agreement (p-values for difference 0.406 and 0.223, respectively), although results from all three staff types showed no overall level of agreement (p-value for difference 0.057). Detailed qualitative analysis of the textual data indicated that the three staff types tended to provide different forms of commentary on quality of care, although there was some overlap between some groups. In the process-outcome study there generally were high criterion-based scores for all hospitals, whereas there was more interhospital variation between the holistic review overall scale scores. Textual commentary on the quality of care verified the holistic scale scores. Differences among hospitals with regard to the relationship between mortality and quality of care were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Using the holistic approach, the three groups of staff appeared to interpret the recorded care differently when they each reviewed the same record. When the same clinical record was reviewed by doctors and non-clinical audit staff, there was no significant difference between the assessments of quality of care generated by the two groups. All three staff groups performed reasonably well when using criterion-based review, although the quality and type of information provided by doctors was of greater value. Therefore, when measuring quality of care from case notes, consideration needs to be given to the method of review, the type of staff undertaking the review, and the methods of analysis available to the review team. Review can be enhanced using a combination of both criterion-based and structured holistic methods with textual commentary, and variation in quality of care can best be identified from a combination of holistic scale scores and textual data review.

Effectiveness of the diabetes education and self management for ongoing and newly diagnosed (DESMOND) programme for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a structured group education programme on biomedical, psychosocial, and lifestyle measures in people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: Multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care with randomisation at practice level. SETTING: 207 general practices in 13 primary care sites in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 824 adults (55% men, mean age 59.5 years). INTERVENTION: A structured group education programme for six hours delivered in the community by two trained healthcare professional educators compared with usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Haemoglobin A(1c) levels, blood pressure, weight, blood lipid levels, smoking status, physical activity, quality of life, beliefs about illness, depression, and emotional impact of diabetes at baseline and up to 12 months. MAIN RESULTS: Haemoglobin A(1c) levels at 12 months had decreased by 1.49% in the intervention group compared with 1.21% in the control group. After adjusting for baseline and cluster, the difference was not significant: 0.05% (95% confidence interval -0.10% to 0.20%). The intervention group showed a greater weight loss: -2.98 kg (95% confidence interval -3.54 to -2.41) compared with 1.86 kg (-2.44 to -1.28), P=0.027 at 12 months. The odds of not smoking were 3.56 (95% confidence interval 1.11 to 11.45), P=0.033 higher in the intervention group at 12 months. The intervention group showed significantly greater changes in illness belief scores (P=0.001); directions of change were positive indicating greater understanding of diabetes. The intervention group had a lower depression score at 12 months: mean difference was -0.50 (95% confidence interval -0.96 to -0.04); P=0.032. A positive association was found between change in perceived personal responsibility and weight loss at 12 months (beta=0.12; P=0.008). CONCLUSION: A structured group education programme for patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes resulted in greater improvements in weight loss and smoking cessation and positive improvements in beliefs about illness but no difference in haemoglobin A(1c) levels up to 12 months after diagnosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17844016 [controlled-trials.com].