[Factors Influencing Access to Follow-Up Rehabilitation]. / Einflussfaktoren auf den Zugang in die Anschlussrehabilitation (AR/AHB).

PURPOSE: Identification of patient-related influencing factors on access to follow-up rehabilitation METHODS: Partially standardized, written survey of patients between the ages of 18 and 65 in 3 acute hospitals in Hanover, who were assigned to one of the following six defined indication groups on the basis of their diagnosis: (1) surgically treated bone fractures, (2) knee and hip endoprosthesis, (3) malignant disease from visceral surgery, (4) heart disease without surgical intervention, (5) heart disease with surgical intervention, and (6) stroke. In addition to personal information (such as age and gender) personal rehabilitation goals, rehabilitation motivation, disease processing, functioning, state of health, the knowledge of right to request and suffrage and the personal desire to start a follow-up rehabilitation were raised. RESULTS: Of the 1,227 patients surveyed, 42.5% received follow-up rehabilitation. The percentages between the groups of diagnoses varied widely and were lowest after conservatively treated heart disease (3.2%) and highest after knee and hip joint replacement (98.1%). Including cases with a follow-up rehabilitation relevant diagnosis (n=1,000), the proportion of persons with rehabilitation increased to 51.7% (p<0.001). Reasons for an untreated follow-up rehabilitation were in rare cases the rejection by the payer (0.7%), the rejection by the patient (1.6%) or the lack of rehabilitation ability (3.3%). However in most cases the application remained without further differentiation (28.5%). The most important factor influencing follow-up rehabilitation access were diagnosis. Compared to knee- and hip endoprosthesis, the patients from other relevant diagnosis groups had a much lower chance to start a follow-up rehabilitation (OR from 0,01 up to 0,07; p<0,001). The desire of the patient showed the second most and significant influence to get follow-up rehabilitation (OR=8.18; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis was identified as the most important criterion for follow-up rehabilitation access. No measurable factors of functioning seem to have a big influence. Therefore, the individual doctor's decision to submit an application is of particular importance. Especially because of the low level of medical knowledge on the indication catalog of the German pension insurance, the medical treatment based on professional experience as well as the lack of further education possibilities (Gottschling-Lang, 2016), it can be assumed that the follow-up rehabilitation is less standardized and systematic. In order to ensure a need-based patient care, assessment procedures should be established and the training and continuing education of physicians should be supplemented with the topic of follow-up rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation Services Provision and Payment.

Persons with spinal cord injury (SCI) experience disability and have significant need for rehabilitation. To deliver appropriate rehabilitation, interventions and programs suitable services must exist. A prerequisite for system improvement is a description of rehabilitation services. The aim of this paper was to develop a rehabilitation service framework for SCI. Additionally, principles and models of payment of rehabilitation services will be discussed. Health-related rehabilitation services should be available along the continuum of care and implemented at all levels of health care. The three most important types of services are acute, postacute, and long-term rehabilitation services. Health-related rehabilitation services for patients with SCI must be able to provide high-quality equipment and a well-trained, highly specialized and multiprofessional team of rehabilitation workers. The principles of payment for SCI rehabilitation services vary according to the organization of health care systems, which primarily depends on the sources of money (eg, from national health care systems, other health insurances, or out of pocket). Funding systems and payment criteria may influence service provision and justice in service delivery. It is important to analyze the provision of rehabilitation services and the related funding system using uniform assessment and evaluation tools.