Cost modelling rehabilitation in the home for reconditioning in the Australian context.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient rehabilitation services are challenged by increasing demand. Where appropriate, a shift in service models towards more community-oriented approaches may improve efficiency. We aimed to estimate the hypothetical cost of delivering a consensus-based rehabilitation in the home (RITH) model as hospital substitution for patients requiring reconditioning following medical illness, surgery or treatment for cancer, compared to the cost of inpatient rehabilitation. METHODS: Data were drawn from the following sources: the results of a Delphi survey with health professionals working in the field of rehabilitation in Australia; publicly available data and reports; and the expert opinion of the project team. Delphi survey data were analysed descriptively. The costing model was developed using assumptions based on the sources described above and was restricted to the Australian National Subacute and Non-Acute Patient Classification (AN-SNAP) classes 4AR1 to 4AR4, which comprise around 73% of all reconditioning episodes in Australia. RITH cost modelling estimates were compared to the known cost of inpatient rehabilitation. Where weighted averages are provided, these were determined based on the modelled number of inpatient reconditioning episodes per annum that might be substitutable by RITH. RESULTS: The cost modelling estimated the weighted average cost of a RITH reconditioning episode (which mirrors an inpatient reconditioning episode in intensity and duration) for AN-SNAP classes 4AR1 to 4AR4, to be A$11,371, which is 28.1% less than the equivalent weighted average public inpatient cost (of A$15,820). This represents hypothetical savings of A$4,449 per RITH reconditioning substituted episode of care. CONCLUSIONS: The hypothetical cost of a model of RITH which would provide patients with as comprehensive a rehabilitation service as received in inpatient rehabilitation, has been determined. Findings suggest potential cost savings to the public hospital sector. Future research should focus on trials which compare actual clinical and cost outcomes of RITH for patients in the reconditioning impairment category, to inpatient rehabilitation.

Risk Factors Associated with Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events after Ischemic Stroke: A Linked Registry Study.

INTRODUCTION: Survivors of stroke are at risk of experiencing subsequent major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We aimed to determine the incidence of, and risk factors for, MACE after first-ever ischemic stroke, by age group (18-64 years vs. ≥65 years). METHODS: Observational cohort study using patient-level data from the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (2009-2013), linked with hospital administrative data. We included adults with first-ever ischemic stroke who had no previous acute cardiovascular admissions and followed these patients for 2 years post-discharge, or until the first post-stroke MACE event. A Fine-Gray sub-distribution hazard model, accounting for the competing risk of non-cardiovascular death, was used to determine factors for incident post-stroke MACE. RESULTS: Among 5,994 patients with a first-ever ischemic stroke (median age 73 years, 45% female), 17% were admitted for MACE within 2 years (129 events per 1,000 person-years). The median time to first post-stroke MACE was 117 days (89 days if aged <65 years vs. 126 days if aged ≥65 years; p = 0.025). Among patients aged 18-64 years, receiving intravenous thrombolysis (sub-distribution hazard ratio [SHR] 0.51 [95% CI, 0.28-0.92]) or being discharged to inpatient rehabilitation (SHR 0.65 [95% CI, 0.46-0.92]) were associated with a reduced incidence of post-stroke MACE. In those aged ≥65 years, being unable to walk on admission (SHR 1.33 [95% CI 1.15-1.54]), and history of smoking (SHR 1.40 [95% CI 1.14-1.71]) or atrial fibrillation (SHR 1.31 [95% CI 1.14-1.51]) were associated with an increased incidence of post-stroke MACE. Acute management in a large hospital (>300 beds) for the initial stroke event was associated with reduced incidence of post-stroke MACE, irrespective of age group. CONCLUSIONS: MACE is common within 2 years of stroke, with most events occurring within the first year. We have identified important factors to consider when designing interventions to prevent MACE after stroke, particularly among those aged <65 years.

Developing a model for rehabilitation in the home as hospital substitution for patients requiring reconditioning: a Delphi survey in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Reconditioning for patients who have experienced functional decline following medical illness, surgery or treatment for cancer accounts for approximately 26% of all reported inpatient rehabilitation episodes in Australia. Rehabilitation in the home (RITH) has the potential to offer a cost-effective, high-quality alternative for appropriate patients, helping to reduce pressure on the acute care sector. This study sought to gain consensus on a model for RITH as hospital substitution for patients requiring reconditioning. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of health professionals working in the rehabilitation field was identified from across Australia and invited to participate in a three-round online Delphi survey. Survey items followed the patient journey, and also included items on practitioner roles, clinical governance, and budgetary considerations. Survey items mostly comprised statements seeking agreement on 5-point Likert scales (strongly agree to strongly disagree). Free text boxes allowed participants to qualify item answers or make comments. Analysis of quantitative data used descriptive statistics; qualitative data informed question content in subsequent survey rounds or were used in understanding item responses. RESULTS: One-hundred and ninety-eight health professionals received an invitation to participate. Of these, 131/198 (66%) completed round 1, 101/131 (77%) completed round 2, and 78/101 (77%) completed round 3. Consensus (defined as ≥ 70% agreement or disagreement) was achieved on over 130 statements. These related to the RITH patient journey (including patient assessment and development of the care plan, case management and program provision, and patient and program outcomes); clinical governance and budgetary considerations; and included items for initial patient screening, patient eligibility and case manager roles. A consensus-based model for RITH was developed, comprising five key steps and the actions within each. CONCLUSIONS: Strong support amongst survey participants was found for RITH as hospital substitution to be widely available for appropriate patients needing reconditioning. Supportive legislative and payment systems, mechanisms that allow for the integration of primary care, and appropriate clinical governance frameworks for RITH are required, if broad implementation is to be achieved. Studies comparing clinical outcomes and cost-benefit of RITH to inpatient rehabilitation for patients requiring reconditioning are also needed.

Integration of trauma and rehabilitation services is the answer to more cost-effective care.

BACKGROUND: The pathway from acute trauma care to inpatient rehabilitation has not been previously studied in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. This study aimed to examine the outcomes of patients transferred from a trauma service to its 'in-house' rehabilitation service (Group A) compared with outcomes of patients transferred from a designated trauma centre to an external rehabilitation service (Group B). This is carried out to identify any inefficiencies, delays and opportunities for improvement. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study using linked registry data. This study included all patients admitted after a motor vehicle collision to trauma services in NSW over the period of 2009-2012, who required inpatient rehabilitation. Those requiring specialized brain or spinal injury rehabilitation or those who went to private rehabilitation units were excluded. RESULTS: There were 249 patients in this cohort with majority (59%) in Group A and the remainder in Group B. There was no significant difference between the age of the patients, injury severity or acute length of stay (LOS) between the two groups. Admission and discharge functional independence measure scores were also similar between the two groups. There was a significant difference in the LOS in rehabilitation (30 days for Group A compared with 40 days in Group B, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Transferring patients to an external rehabilitation service from a designated trauma service is less efficient than providing the same care by the 'in-house' rehabilitation service. There may be opportunities to improve the efficiency of trauma management and reduce costs.