Prolonged disorders of consciousness: A response to a "critical evaluation of the new UK guidelines."

BACKGROUND: In 2020, The London Royal College of Physicians published "Prolonged disorders of consciousness following sudden-onset brain injury: national clinical guidelines". In 2021, in the journal Brain, Scolding et al. published "a critical evaluation of the new UK guidelines". This evaluation focussed on one of the 73 recommendations in the National Clinical Guidelines. They also alleged that the guidelines were unethical. CRITICISMS: They criticised our recommendation not to use activation protocols using fMRI, electroencephalography, or Positron Emission Tomography. They claim these tests can (a) detect 'covert consciousness', (b) add predictive value and (c) should be part of routine clinical care. They also suggest that our guideline was driven by cost considerations, leading to clinicians deciding to withdraw treatment at 72 h. EVIDENCE: Our detailed review of the evidence confirms the American Academy of Neurology Practise Guideline (2018) and the European Academy of Neurology Guideline (2020), which agree that insufficient evidence supports their approach. ETHICS: The ethical objections are based on unwarranted assumptions. Our guideline does not make any recommendations about management until at least four weeks have passed. We explicitly recommend that expert assessors undertake ongoing surveillance and monitoring; we do not suggest that patients be abandoned. Our recommendation will increase the cost We had ethicists in the working party. CONCLUSION: We conclude the "critical evaluation" fails to provide evidence for their criticism and that the ethical objections arise from incorrect assumptions and unsupported interpretations of evidence and our guideline. The 2020 UK national guidelines remain valid.

Time between acquired brain injury and admission to community-based rehabilitation: differences in cognitive and functional gains.

OBJECTIVE: To determine differences in rehabilitation gains made by people with an acquired brain injury undergoing staged community-based brain injury rehabilitation (SCBIR) at different times between injury and admission. METHOD: Retrospective cohort analysis of routinely collected demographic and rehabilitation data from clients admitted to SCBIR service 2011-2017 (n=92). Outcome measures: Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory-4 (MPAI-4) and UK Functional Assessment Measure (UK FIM+FAM) collected on admission and annually thereafter until discharge. Analysis was stratified by time since injury on admission: 'Early' (<1 year (n=36)), 'Middle' (1-2 years (n=34)) and 'Late' (>2 years (n=22)). Between-group differences were tested using bootstrapped one-way ANOVA. Within-group differences were tested using paired T tests. RESULTS: Total cohort made significant gains in MPAI-4 and UK FIM+FAM total and all subscales (p = .001). Early group made greatest change in all subscales of both outcome measures (p < .01). Middle cohort improved significantly in all subscales (p < .02) excluding MPAI-4 Adjustment. Late cohort still made statistically significant gains in all UK FIM+FAM subscales (p < .05) and MPAI-4 Participation (p < .01). Item level changes are presented. CONCLUSION: More than 2 years after injury, people are able to make improvements in participation and functional independence following SCBIR.

Estimated Life-Time Savings in the Cost of Ongoing Care Following Specialist Rehabilitation for Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate cost-efficiency of rehabilitation following severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and estimate the life-time savings in costs of care. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: TBI patients (n = 3578/6043) admitted to all 75 specialist rehabilitation services in England 2010-2018. DESIGN: A multicenter cohort analysis of prospectively collated clinical data from the UK Rehabilitation Outcomes Collaborative national clinical database. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes: (a) reduction in dependency (UK Functional Assessment Measure), (b) cost-efficiency, measured in time taken to offset rehabilitation costs by savings in costs of ongoing care estimated by the Northwick Park Dependency Scale/Care Needs Assessment (NPDS/NPCNA), and (c) estimated life-time savings. RESULTS: The mean age was 49 years (74% males). Including patients who remained in persistent vegetative state on discharge, the mean episode cost of rehabilitation was £42 894 (95% CI: £41 512, £44 235), which was offset within 18.2 months by NPCNA-estimated savings in ongoing care costs. The mean period life expectancy adjusted for TBI severity was 21.6 years, giving mean net life-time savings in care costs of £679 776/patient (95% CI: £635 972, £722 786). CONCLUSIONS: Specialist rehabilitation proved highly cost-efficient for severely disabled patients with TBI, despite their reduced life-span, potentially generating over £4 billion savings in the cost of ongoing care for this 8-year national cohort.

Life Expectancy after Stroke Based On Age, Sex, and Rankin Grade of Disability: A Synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability in the developed world. The major factor affecting long term survival (other than age) is known to be the severity of disability. Yet to our knowledge there are no studies reporting life expectancies stratified by both age and severity. Remaining life expectancy is a key measure of health. METHODS: We identified 11 long-term follow-up studies of stroke patients that reported the multivariate effects of age, sex, the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) grade of disability, and other factors. From these we computed the composite effects of these factors on survival, then used these to calculate age-, sex-, and mRS-specific mortality rates. Finally we used the rates to construct life tables, and hence obtain life expectancies. RESULTS: Life expectancy varies by age, sex, and mRS. The life expectancies of males age 70, for example, were 13, 13, 11, 8, 6, and 5 years for Rankin Grades 0-5, respectively, representing reductions of 1, 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9 years from the corresponding general population figure. CONCLUSIONS: These figures demonstrate the importance of rehabilitation following stroke, and can be used in discussion of public policy and benchmarking of future results.

A matter of life and death: controversy at the interface between clinical and legal decision-making in prolonged disorders of consciousness.

Best interests decision-making and end-of-life care for patients in permanent vegetative or minimally conscious states (VS/MCS) is a complex area of clinical and legal practice, which is poorly understood by most clinicians, lawyers and members of the public. In recent weeks, the Oxford Shrieval lecture by Mr Justice Baker ('A Matter of Life and Death', 11 October 2016) and its subsequent reporting in the public press has sparked debate on the respective roles of clinicians, the Court of Protection and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatments from patients with disorders of consciousness. The debate became polarised and confused by misquotation and inaccurate terminology, and highlighted a lack of knowledge about how patients in VS/MCS die in the absence of court approval. This article sets out the background and discussion and attempts to give a more accurate representation of the facts. In the spirit of transparency, I present a mortality review of all the patients in VS/MCS who have died under the care of my own unit in the last decade-with or without referral to the court, but always in accordance with the law. These data demonstrate that clinicians regularly undertake best interests decision-making in conjunction with families that may include life and death decisions (sometimes even the withdrawal or withholding of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration); and that these can be made within the current legal framework without necessarily involving the court in all cases. This is the first published case series of its kind.

Staged residential post-acute rehabilitation for adults following acquired brain injury: A comparison of functional gains rated on the UK Functional Assessment Measure (UK FIM+FAM) and the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory (MPAI-4).

OBJECTIVE: To compare the UK Functional Assessment Measure (UK FIM+FAM) and Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory (MPAI-4) as measures of functional change in patients with brain injury receiving a staged residential post-acute community-based rehabilitation programme. RESEARCH DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort study of consecutive admissions (N = 42) over 3 years. METHODS: Patients were assessed at admission and discharge/annual review. We examined groups according to stage of independence on admission: Maximum support (stages 1 and 2: N = 17); moderate/maximum self-care/household support (stage 3: N = 15); minimal self-care and moderate household/community support (stages 4-6: N = 10). RESULTS: Median (IQR) age: 50 (37-56) years. Male:female ratio: (71%:29%). Aetiology: stroke (50%), traumatic (36%) and other brain injuries (14%). Both tools demonstrated significant gains in overall scores and all subscales (p < 0.01). However, the UK FIM+FAM provides more detailed evaluation of personal activities of daily living and mobility, which were most relevant in clients admitted in graduation stages 1 and 2 of the programme, whereas the MPAI-4 was more sensitive to changes in adjustment and participation for clients admitted in the later stages (4-6). CONCLUSIONS: The UK FIM+FAM and MPAI-4 provide complementary evaluation across functional tasks ranging from self-care to participation. This study supports their use for longitudinal outcome evaluation in community residential rehabilitation services that take patients at different stages of recovery.

Unmet need for specialised rehabilitation following neurosurgery: can we maximise the potential cost-benefits?

OBJECTIVE: To identify the needs for specialised rehabilitation provision in a cohort of neurosurgical patients; to determine if these were met, and to estimate the potential cost implications and cost-benefits of meeting any unmet rehabilitation needs. METHODS: A prospective study of in-patient admissions to a regional neurosurgical ward. Assessment of needs for specialised rehabilitation (Category A or B needs) was made with the Patient Categorisation Tool. The number of patients who were referred and admitted for specialised rehabilitation was calculated. Data from the unit's submission to the UK Rehabilitation Outcomes Collaborative (UKROC) national clinical database 2012-2015 were used to estimate the potential mean lifetime savings generated through reduction in the costs of on-going care in the community. RESULTS: Of 223 neurosurgical in-patients over 3 months, 156 (70%) had Category A or B needs. Out of the 105 patients who were eligible for admission to the local specialised rehabilitation service, only 20 (19%) were referred and just 11 (10%) were actually admitted. The mean transfer time was 70.2 (range 28-127) days, compared with the national standard of 42 days. In the 3-year sample, mean savings in the cost of on-going care were £568 per week. Assuming a 10-year reduction in life expectancy, the approximate net lifetime saving for post-neurosurgical patients was estimated as at least £600K per patient. We calculated that provision of additional bed capacity in the specialist rehabilitation unit could generate net savings of £3.6M/bed-year. CONCLUSION: This preliminary single-centre study identified a considerable gap in provision of specialised rehabilitation for neurosurgical patients, which must be addressed if patients are to fulfil their potential for recovery. A 5-fold increase in bed capacity would cost £9.3m/year, but could lead to potential net savings of £24m/year. Our findings now require confirmation on a wider scale through prospective multi-centre studies.

Common goal areas in the treatment of upper limb spasticity: a multicentre analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a goal classification of individualised goals for spasticity treatment incorporating botulinum toxin intervention for upper limb spasticity to under-pin a more structured approach to future goal setting. DESIGN: Individualised goals for spasticity treatment incorporating botulinum toxin intervention for upper limb spasticity (n=696) were analysed initially from four studies published in 2008-2012, spanning a total of 18 centres (12 in the UK and 6 in Australia). Goals were categorised and mapped onto the closest matching domains of the WHO International Classification of Functioning. Confirmatory analysis included a further 927 goals from a large international cohort study spanning 22 countries published in 2013. RESULTS: Goal categories could be assigned into two domains, each subdivided into three key goal areas: Domain 1: symptoms/impairment n=322 (46%): a. pain/discomfort n=78 (11%), b. involuntary movements n=75 (11%), c. range of movement/contracture prevention n=162 (23%). Domain 2: Activities/function n=374 (54%): a. passive function (ease of caring for the affected limb) n=242 (35%), b active function (using the affected limb in active tasks) n=84 (12%), c. mobility n=11 (2%).Over 99% of the goals from the large international cohort fell into the same six areas, confirming the international applicability of the classification. CONCLUSIONS: Goals for management of upper limb spasticity, in worldwide clinical practice, fall into six main goal areas.

Multi-disciplinary rehabilitation for acquired brain injury in adults of working age.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from systematic reviews demonstrates that multi-disciplinary rehabilitation is effective in the stroke population, in which older adults predominate. However, the evidence base for the effectiveness of rehabilitation following acquired brain injury (ABI) in younger adults has not been established, perhaps because this scenario presents different methodological challenges in research. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of multi-disciplinary rehabilitation following ABI in adults 16 to 65 years of age. SEARCH METHODS: We ran the most recent search on 14 September 2015. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic+Embase (OvidSP), Web of Science (ISI WOS) databases, clinical trials registers, and we screened reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multi-disciplinary rehabilitation versus routinely available local services or lower levels of intervention; or trials comparing an intervention in different settings, of different intensities or of different timing of onset. Controlled clinical trials were included, provided they met pre-defined methodological criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently selected trials and rated their methodological quality. A fourth review author would have arbitrated if consensus could not be reached by discussion, but in fact, this did not occur. As in previous versions of this review, we used the method described by Van Tulder 1997 to rate the quality of trials and to perform a 'best evidence' synthesis by attributing levels of evidence on the basis of methodological quality. Risk of bias assessments were performed in parallel using standard Cochrane methodology. However, the Van Tulder system provided a more discriminative evaluation of rehabilitation trials, so we have continued to use it for our primary synthesis of evidence. We subdivided trials in terms of severity of brain injury, setting and type and timing of rehabilitation offered. MAIN RESULTS: We identified a total of 19 studies involving 3480 people. Twelve studies were of good methodological quality and seven were of lower quality, according to the van Tulder scoring system. Within the subgroup of predominantly mild brain injury, 'strong evidence' suggested that most individuals made a good recovery when appropriate information was provided, without the need for additional specific interventions. For moderate to severe injury, 'strong evidence' showed benefit from formal intervention, and 'limited evidence' indicated that commencing rehabilitation early after injury results in better outcomes. For participants with moderate to severe ABI already in rehabilitation, 'strong evidence' revealed that more intensive programmes are associated with earlier functional gains, and 'moderate evidence' suggested that continued outpatient therapy could help to sustain gains made in early post-acute rehabilitation. The context of multi-disciplinary rehabilitation appears to influence outcomes. 'Strong evidence' supports the use of a milieu-oriented model for patients with severe brain injury, in which comprehensive cognitive rehabilitation takes place in a therapeutic environment and involves a peer group of patients. 'Limited evidence' shows that specialist in-patient rehabilitation and specialist multi-disciplinary community rehabilitation may provide additional functional gains, but studies serve to highlight the particular practical and ethical restraints imposed on randomisation of severely affected individuals for whom no realistic alternatives to specialist intervention are available. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Problems following ABI vary. Consequently, different interventions and combinations of interventions are required to meet the needs of patients with different problems. Patients who present acutely to hospital with mild brain injury benefit from follow-up and appropriate information and advice. Those with moderate to severe brain injury benefit from routine follow-up so their needs for rehabilitation can be assessed. Intensive intervention appears to lead to earlier gains, and earlier intervention whilst still in emergency and acute care has been supported by limited evidence. The balance between intensity and cost-effectiveness has yet to be determined. Patients discharged from in-patient rehabilitation benefit from access to out-patient or community-based services appropriate to their needs. Group-based rehabilitation in a therapeutic milieu (where patients undergo neuropsychological rehabilitation in a therapeutic environment with a peer group of individuals facing similar challenges) represents an effective approach for patients requiring neuropsychological rehabilitation following severe brain injury. Not all questions in rehabilitation can be addressed by randomised controlled trials or other experimental approaches. For example, trial-based literature does not tell us which treatments work best for which patients over the long term, and which models of service represent value for money in the context of life-long care. In the future, such questions will need to be considered alongside practice-based evidence gathered from large systematic longitudinal cohort studies conducted in the context of routine clinical practice.

The Needs and Provision Complexity Scale: a first psychometric analysis using multicentre data.

OBJECTIVE: A psychometric evaluation of the Needs and Provision Complexity Scale (NPCS). MAIN MEASURE: The NPCS is designed to evaluate both needs for health and social support (NPCS-Needs) and services provided to meet those needs (NPCS-Gets). DESIGN: A consecutive cohort of patients were recruited from nine specialist neurorehabilitation units in London. SUBJECTS: Four hundred and twenty-eight patients were assessed at discharge (63.1% males; mean age 49 years) of whom 73.6% had acquired brain injury (49.5% stroke/subarachnoid, 14.7% traumatic brain injury, 9.3% 'other acquired brain injury'), 8.9% spinal cord injury, 6.1% peripheral neuropathy, 4.9% progressive neurological and 6.3% other neurological conditions. RESULTS: The NPCS-Needs was completed by the clinical team at discharge and 212 patients reported NPCS-Gets after six months. NPCS-Gets repeatability was tested in a subsample (n = 60). Factor analysis identified two principal domains ('Health and personal care' and 'Social care and support') accounting for 66% of variance, and suggested a large general factor underpinning the NPCS. Internal consistency was high (alpha = 0.94) and repeatability acceptable. Intraclass coefficients for domain scores were healthcare 0.67 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.80); personal care 0.83 (0.73-0.90); rehabilitation 0.65 (0.45-0.78); social/family support 0.66 (0.46-0.79) and environment 0.84 (0.74-0.90). Linear-weighted kappas for item-by-item agreement ranged from 0.42 to 0.83. Concurrent validity was demonstrated through correlations with measures of dependency and community integration. CONCLUSIONS: Notwithstanding a 50% response rate after six months, the NPCS has good internal consistency, a robust two-factor structure, acceptable test-retest reliability and initial evidence of concurrent validity.

The Work-ability Support Scale: evaluation of scoring accuracy and rater reliability.

PURPOSE: The Work-ability Support Scale (WSS) is a new tool designed to assess vocational ability and support needs following onset of acquired disability, to assist decision-making in vocational rehabilitation. In this article, we report an iterative process of development through evaluation of inter- and intra-rater reliability and scoring accuracy, using vignettes. The impact of different methodological approaches to analysis of reliability is highlighted. METHODS: Following preliminary evaluation using case-histories, six occupational therapists scored vignettes, first individually and then together in two teams. Scoring was repeated blind after 1 month. Scoring accuracy was tested against agreed 'reference standard' vignette scores using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for total scores and linear-weighted kappas (kw) for individual items. Item-by-item inter- and intra-rater reliability was evaluated for both individual and team scores, using two different statistical methods. RESULTS: ICCs for scoring accuracy ranged from 0.95 (95 % CI 0.78-0.98) to 0.96 (0.89-0.99) for Part A, and from 0.78 (95 % CI 0.67-0.85) to 0.84 (0.69-0.92) for Part B. Item by item analysis of scoring accuracy, inter- and intra-rater reliability all showed 'substantial' to 'almost perfect' agreement (kw ≥ 0.60) for all Part-A and 8/12 Part-B items, although multi-rater kappa (Fleiss) produced more conservative results (mK = 0.34-0.79). Team rating produced marginal improvements for Part-A but not Part-B. Four problematic contextual items were identified, leading to adjustment of the scoring manual. CONCLUSION: This vignette-based study demonstrates generally acceptable levels of scoring accuracy and reliability for the WSS. Further testing in real-life situations is now warranted.

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation following botulinum toxin and other focal intramuscular treatment for post-stroke spasticity.

BACKGROUND: Spasticity may affect stroke survivors by contributing to activity limitations, caregiver burden, pain and reduced quality of life (QoL). Spasticity management guidelines recommend multidisciplinary (MD) rehabilitation programmes following botulinum toxin (BoNT) treatment for post-stroke spasticity. However, the evidence base for the effectiveness of MD rehabilitation is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of MD rehabilitation, following BoNT and other focal intramuscular treatments such as phenol, in improving activity limitations and other outcomes in adults and children with post-stroke spasticity. To explore what settings, types and intensities of rehabilitation programmes are effective. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (February 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 12), MEDLINE (1948 to December 2011), EMBASE (1980 to January 2012), CINAHL (1982 to January 2012), AMED (1985 to January 2012), LILACS (1982 to September 2012), PEDro, REHABDATA and OpenGrey (September 2012). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials we searched trials registries and reference lists, handsearched journals and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared MD rehabilitation (delivered by two or more disciplines in conjunction with medical input) following BoNT and other focal intramuscular treatments for post-stroke spasticity with placebo, routinely available local services, or lower levels of intervention; or studies that compared MD rehabilitation in different settings, of different types, or at different levels of intensity. We excluded RCTs that assessed the effectiveness of unidisciplinary therapy (for example physiotherapy only) or a single modality (for example stretching, casting, electrical stimulation or splinting only). The primary outcomes were validated measures of activity level (active and passive function) according to the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Secondary outcomes included measures of symptoms, impairments, participation, QoL, impact on caregivers and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently selected the trials, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Due to the limited number of included studies, with clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity, quantitative meta-analysis was not possible. Therefore, GRADE provided qualitative synthesis of 'best evidence'. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs involving 91 participants. All three studies scored 'low quality' on the methodological quality assessment, implying high risk of bias. All studies investigated various types and intensities of outpatient rehabilitation programmes following BoNT for upper limb spasticity in adults with chronic stroke. Rehabilitation programmes included: modified constraint-induced movement therapy (mCIMT) compared with a neurodevelopmental therapy programme; task practice therapy with cyclic functional electrical stimulation (FES) compared with task practice therapy only; and occupational, manual therapy with dynamic elbow extension splinting compared with occupational therapy only. There was 'low quality' evidence for mCIMT improving upper limb motor function and spasticity in chronic stroke survivors with residual voluntary upper limb activity, up to six months, and 'very low quality' evidence for dynamic elbow splinting and occupational therapy reducing elbow range of movement at 14 weeks. Task practice therapy with cyclic FES did not improve upper limb function more than task practice therapy alone, only at 12 weeks. No studies addressed interventions in children and those with lower limb spasticity, or after other focal intramuscular treatments for spasticity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At best there was 'low level' evidence for the effectiveness of outpatient MD rehabilitation in improving active function and impairments following BoNT for upper limb spasticity in adults with chronic stroke. No trials explored the effect of MD rehabilitation on 'passive function' (caring for the affected limb), caregiver burden, or the individual's priority goals for treatment. The optimal types (modalities, therapy approaches, settings) and intensities of therapy for improving activity (active and passive function) in adults and children with post-stroke spasticity, in the short and longer term, are unclear. Further research is required to build evidence in this area.

Initial psychometric evaluation of the Arm Activity Measure (ArmA): a measure of activity in the hemiparetic arm.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the Arm Activity Measure (ArmA), a patient-reported measure of active and passive function in the paretic upper limb. DESIGN: Psychometric evaluation study. SETTING: Two specialist rehabilitation and spasticity management services. METHOD: Patients (n = 92) with upper limb paresis were recruited from two specialist neurorehabilitation centres. Mean age 44.5 (SD 16.7). Diagnostic distribution: stroke 48 (52%); other brain injury 28 (31%); or other neurological condition 16 (17%). Evaluation of convergent and divergent validity; unidimensionality, scaling, reliability (internal consistency and test-retest); responsiveness to change and feasibility of the ArmA were undertaken. RESULTS: Expected convergent and divergent relationships were seen with the Leeds Adult Spasticity Impact Scale and the Disabilities of Arm Shoulder and Hand (DASH) (rho 0.5-0.63). Principal components analysis confirmed that active and passive function formed two separate constructs in each sub-scale. Mokken analysis corroborated the findings of the principal components analysis and demonstrated scaling using the monotone homogeneity model (Item H>0.5 for all items). Cronbach's alpha was 0.85 and 0.96, respectively, for the passive and active function subscales. Item level test-retest agreement ranged from 92-97.5% (quadratic-weighted Kappa 0.71-0.94). In the subgroup treated for spasticity with botulinum toxin (n = 58), the ArmA passive function scale identified a significant difference between responder and non-responder groups (Mann Whitney U = 0.85, p < 0.01). Respondents reported the ArmA to be relevant (77%), easy to use (90%) and timely to complete (83% under 10 minutes). CONCLUSION: The ArmA is a valid and reliable tool feasible for use in the evaluation of upper limb function in the context of treatment for spasticity.

Prediction of emergence from prolonged disorders of consciousness from measures within the UK rehabilitation outcomes collaborative database: a multicentre analysis using machine learning.

PURPOSE: Predicting emergence from prolonged disorders of consciousness (PDOC) is important for planning care and treatment. We used machine learning to examine which variables from routine clinical data on admission to specialist rehabilitation units best predict emergence by discharge. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicentre national cohort analysis of prospectively collected clinical data from the UK Rehabilitation Outcomes (UKROC) database 2010-2018. Patients (n = 1170) were operationally defined as "still in PDOC" or "emerged" by their total UK Functional Assessment Measure (FIM + FAM) discharge score. Variables included: Age, aetiology, length of stay, time since onset, and all items of the Neurological Impairment Scale, Rehabilitation Complexity Scale, Northwick Park Dependency Scale, and the Patient Categorisation Tool. After filtering, prediction of emergence was explored using four techniques: binary logistic regression, linear discriminant analysis, artificial neural networks, and rule induction. RESULTS: Triangulation through these techniques consistently identified characteristics associated with emergence from PDOC. More severe motor impairment, complex disability, medical and behavioural instability, and anoxic aetiology were predictive of non-emergence, whereas those with less severe motor impairment, agitated behaviour and complex disability were predictive of emergence. CONCLUSIONS: This initial exploration demonstrates the potential opportunities to enhance prediction of outcome using machine learning techniques to explore routinely collected clinical data. Implications for rehabilitationPredicting emergence from prolonged disorders of consciousness is important for planning care and treatment.Few evidence-based criteria exist for aiding clinical decision-making and existing criteria are mostly based upon acute admission data.Whilst acknowledging the limitations of using proxy data for diagnosis of emergence, this study suggests that key items from the UKROC dataset, routinely collected on admission to specialist rehabilitation some months post injury, may help to predict those patients who are more (or less) likely to regain consciousness.Machine learning can help to enhance our understanding of the best predictors of outcome and thus assist with clinical decision-making in PDOC.

Prolonged disorders of consciousness: identification using the UK FIM + FAM and cohort analysis of outcomes from a UK national clinical database.

PURPOSE: 1: To determine whether Total UK FIM + FAM scores can identify patients in VS/MCS. 2: Using the identified cut-off points, to examine outcomes from specialist rehabilitation. METHODS: Part 1: Retrospective analysis of a consecutive clinical cohort (n = 388) presenting to a single specialist PDOC evaluation programme 2007-2021. FIM + FAM scores were analysed by PDOC diagnosis to define cut-off points for vegetative (VS) and minimally conscious states (MCS). Part 2: Multicentre cohort analysis of prospectively-collected clinical outcomes data from the UK Rehabilitation Outcomes Collaborative database of adults in PDOC registered 2011-2020 (n = 2384 in 68 centres). RESULTS: Cut-off points of ≤31 and 32-35 in FIM + FAM total scores respectively identified patients in VS/MCS-Minus and MCS-Plus. Approximately 365 PDOC patients are admitted to specialist rehabilitation units in England each year. By discharge, 43% have emerged into consciousness and demonstrate a wide range of disability. A few reached full independence, but the majority remained severely dependent. Nevertheless, those who emerged generated mean net life-time savings of over £436,000 (£400 million for this cohort). CONCLUSION: In absence of a dedicated PDOC registry, FIM + FAM scores can identify patients in VS/MCS at population level. Identifying those who emerge and providing timely rehabilitation generates cost-savings well-exceeding the cost of the evaluation/rehabilitation programme.Implications for rehabilitationThe UK National Health Service currently collects no systematic data to identify patients in PDOC, so we have no accurate information on how many patients there are, where they are managed or what their outcomes are.In the absence of more direct data, total FIM + FAM scores of < =31 and 32-35 respectively can be used to identify patients in vegetative and minimally conscious states.Of the 365 or so patients admitted to specialist rehabilitation units per year, 43% emerge into consciousness leaving about 150 patients per year in PDOC states that are likely to be permanent.Identifying those who emerge and providing timely rehabilitation generates cost-savings that pay for the entire PDOC evaluation/rehabilitation programme many times over.

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for follow-up of women treated for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women worldwide. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation aims to improve outcomes for women but the evidence base for its effectiveness is yet to be established. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of organised multidisciplinary rehabilitation during follow-up in women treated for breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, PEDro and LILACS in December 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and controlled clinical trials (RCTs, CCTs, respectively) that compared multidisciplinary rehabilitation with some form of control intervention (such as a lower level or different type of intervention, minimal intervention, waiting list controls or no treatment, interventions given in different settings). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The type of data retrieved did not allow for quantitative synthesis and therefore a narrative synthesis was provided. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated by three authors using the risk of bias tool. MAIN RESULTS: Two RCTs, including 262 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Both trials scored poorly for methodological quality. There was 'low level' evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation produced short-term gains at the levels of impairment (that is range of shoulder movement), psychosocial adjustment and quality of life after breast cancer treatment (up to 12 months). No evidence was available for the longer-term functional outcomes for caregivers or the cost effectiveness of these programmes. It was not possible to suggest the most appropriate frequency and duration of therapy or choice of one type of intervention over another. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was 'low level' evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation can improve the outcomes of people with breast cancer in terms of functional ability, psychosocial adjustment and participation in social activities. There was no evidence available on functional gain at the level of activity. This review highlights the limitations of RCTs in rehabilitation settings and the need for high-quality trial-based research in this area. Regular evaluation and assessment of breast cancer survivors for rehabilitation is recommended.

A cost analysis of specialist inpatient neurorehabilitation services in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the range and variation in costs and service characteristics between different levels of specialist neurorehabilitation services in England, and to determine key predictors of service costs. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of service costs, staffing and activity levels, with comparison across service types. SETTING: Specialist neurorehabilitation services (n = 17) from different areas of England, were divided into three types according to predefined criteria: adult level 1 (tertiary) (n = 8) and level 2a (supra-district) (n = 7) services; and children's services (n = 2). MAIN MEASURES: Annual service costs were collated using a standard costing template, and divided according to principal cost type (direct/indirect/overheads) and behaviour (variable/non-variable). For comparison between the level 1 and 2a services, costs and service characteristics were calculated per occupied bed. RESULTS: The percentage breakdown of costs was consistent across all three service types, with direct costs making up 83%, indirect 10%, and overheads 7% of total costs. The median variable component ranged from 75 to 76%. Staff pay made up 66% and accounted for 95% of the variance of the total costs in adult services. Level 1 services had higher total staffing costs, mainly reflecting higher therapy staff numbers (z = -2.0, P = 0.05). The median total costs/bed-day were: level 1 £530 (interquartile range (IQR) 435-574) (equivalent to US$860 or €650) and level 2a £402 (US$650 or €459) (IQR 326-451) (z = -2.5, P = 0.009). Children's services cost almost twice that (£1017-1177). CONCLUSIONS: Expected variations in cost are largely due to differences in staff costs. Total staff costs projected by 150% provided a reasonable estimate of total unit costs.

Healthcare tariffs for specialist inpatient neurorehabilitation services: rationale and development of a UK casemix and costing methodology.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the rationale and development of a casemix model and costing methodology for tariff development for specialist neurorehabilitation services in the UK. RATIONALE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW METHODOLOGY: Patients with complex needs incur higher treatment costs. Fair payment should be weighted in proportion to costs of providing treatment, and should allow for variation over time CASEMIX MODEL AND BAND-WEIGHTING: Case complexity is measured by the Rehabilitation Complexity Scale (RCS). Cases are divided into five bands of complexity, based on the total RCS score. The principal determinant of costs in rehabilitation is staff time. Total staff hours/week (estimated from the Northwick Park Nursing and Therapy Dependency Scales) are analysed within each complexity band, through cross-sectional analysis of parallel ratings. A 'band-weighting' factor is derived from the relative proportions of staff time within each of the five bands. COSTING METHODOLOGY: Total unit treatment costs are obtained from retrospective analysis of provider hospitals' budget and accounting statements. Mean bed-day costs (total unit cost/occupied bed days) are divided broadly into 'variable' and 'non-variable' components. In the weighted costing model, the band-weighting factor is applied to the variable portion of the bed-day cost to derive a banded cost, and thence a set of cost-multipliers. Preliminary data from one unit are presented to illustrate how this weighted costing model will be applied to derive a multilevel banded payment model, based on serial complexity ratings, to allow for change over time.

International casemix and funding models: lessons for rehabilitation.

UNLABELLED: This series of articles for rehabilitation in practice aims to cover a knowledge element of the rehabilitation medicine curriculum. Nevertheless they are intended to be of interest to a multidisciplinary audience. The competency addressed in this article is 'An understanding of the different international models for funding of health care services and casemix systems, as exemplified by those in the US, Australia and the UK.' BACKGROUND: Payment for treatment in healthcare systems around the world is increasingly based on fixed tariff models to drive up efficiency and contain costs. Casemix classifications, however, must account adequately for the resource implications of varying case complexity. Rehabilitation poses some particular challenges for casemix development. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this educational narrative review are (a) to provide an overview of the development of casemix in rehabilitation, (b) to describe key characteristics of some well-established casemix and payment models in operation around the world and (c) to explore opportunities for future development arising from the lessons learned. RESULTS: Diagnosis alone does not adequately describe cost variation in rehabilitation. Functional dependency is considered a better cost indicator, and casemix classifications for inpatient rehabilitation in the United States and Australia rely on the Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Fixed episode-based prospective payment systems are shown to contain costs, but at the expense of poorer functional outcomes. More sophisticated models incorporating a mixture of episode and weighted per diem rates may offer greater flexibility to optimize outcome, while still providing incentive for throughput. CONCLUSION: The development of casemix in rehabilitation poses similar challenges for healthcare systems all around the world. Well-established casemix systems in the United States and Australia have afforded valuable lessons for other countries to learn from, but have not provided all the answers. A range of casemix and payment models is required to cater for different healthcare cultures, and casemix tools must capture all the key cost-determinants of treatment for patients with complex needs.

Functional outcomes and cost-efficiency of specialist in-patient rehabilitation following spinal cord injury: a multi-centre national cohort analysis from the UK Rehabilitation Outcomes Collaborative (UKROC).

Purpose: To evaluate functional outcomes, care needs and cost-efficiency of specialist rehabilitation for a multi-centre cohort of inpatients with spinal cord injury (SCI)-comparison based on age and aetiology.Methods and materials: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the UK Rehabilitation Outcomes Collaborative (UKROC) national clinical database from 2012-2019. Adults with SCI admitted for a rehabilitation programme in levels 1 and 2 specialist rehabilitation Units in England, were included if they had valid UK Functional Assessment Measure (UK FIM + FAM) and Northwick Park Dependency Scale (NPDS) scores recorded on admission and discharge (n = 2506 of 3321 admissions).Results: Approximately 425 patients were admitted yearly. 1344(56%) patients were under 65. 736(29%) had traumatic aetiology. Older and Traumatic SCI patients were more likely to have cervical cord damage (X2, p < 0.001). There was a significant improvement in all parameters of functional independence (UK FIM + FAM) (p < 0.001), with the reduction in dependency and care costs (NPDS/NPCNA) (p < 0.001). 1817(72.5%) patients were discharged home. Mean care-costs savings were £25 500/year per patient. Year-on-year trends showed admissions with increasing age, higher complexity and dependency with corresponding increasing episode costs (ANOVA p < 0.001). However, the time taken to offset the cost of rehabilitation did not change significantly (ANOVA p = 0.57).Conclusions: Specialist rehabilitation services provide effective and cost-efficient rehabilitation for patients with spinal cord injury.Implications for RehabilitationApproximately a third of patients who access specialist inpatient rehabilitation following spinal cord injury (SCI) in England are managed in the Specialist Level 1 and 2 neuro-rehabilitation units, rather than in the eight designated national SCI Centres.Despite admitting progressively more complex and dependent patients over eight years, these specialist rehabilitation units continue to provide highly cost-efficient care.The mean annual savings amount to £25,500 per patient. With a mean admission rate of 425 patients, this would generate total savings in excess of £10 million per year for the cohort.Specialist rehabilitation services play an important, but under-recognised, role in the spinal cord injury care pathway.