A prospective observational study of outcomes from rehabilitation of elderly patients with moderate to severe cognitive impairment.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate rehabilitation outcomes in patients with moderate to severe cognitive impairment. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Rehabilitation unit for older people. SUBJECTS: A total of 116 patients (70F) mean age (SD) 86.3 (6.4). Group 1: 89 patients with moderate cognitive impairment (Mini-Mental State Examination 11-20); and Group 2: 27 patients with severe cognitive impairment (Mini-Mental State Examination 0-10). INTERVENTION: A personalised rehabilitation plan. MAIN MEASURES: Barthel Activity of Daily Living score on admission and discharge, length of stay and discharge destination. RESULTS: Of 116 patients, 64 (55.2%) showed an improvement in Barthel score. Mini-Mental State Examination was significantly higher in those who improved, 15.4 (SD 3.7) vs.13.2 (SD 5.1): p = 0.01. The mean Barthel score improved in both groups; Group 1 - 14.7 (SD 19.1) vs. Group 2 - 9.3 (SD 16.3): p = 0.17. Of 84 home admissions in Group 1, more patients returning home showed improvements of at least 5 points in the Barthel score compared with nursing/residential home discharges (32/37 - 86.5% vs. 10/28 - 35.7%: p = 0.0001). In Group 2 of 17 home admissions, 6/6 (100%) home discharges showed improvement compared with 3/7 (42.8%) discharges to nursing/residential home (p = 0.07). In Group 1, a discharge home was associated with significantly greater improvement in number of Barthel items than a nursing/residential home discharge (3.27 (SD 2.07) vs. 1.86 (SD 2.32): p = 0.007). A similar non-significant pattern was noted for severe cognitive impairment patients (3.5 (3.06) vs. 1.14 (1.06); p = 0.1). CONCLUSION: Patients with moderate to severe cognitive impairment demonstrated significant improvements in Barthel score and Barthel items showing that such patients can and do improve with rehabilitation.

Does cognitive impairment affect rehabilitation outcome?

OBJECTIVES: To assess how cognitive impairment affects rehabilitation outcomes and to determine whether individual benefit regardless of cognition. DESIGN: Prospective open observational study. SETTING: Two rehabilitation wards admitting older adults after admissions with medical or surgical problems. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred forty-one individuals admitted to two rehabilitation wards, 144 female, mean age 84.4 ± 7.3 (range: 59-103). MEASUREMENTS: The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) was administered, and participants were categorized into four groups: cognitively intact (MMSE score: 27-30), mildly impaired (MMSE score: 21-26), moderately impaired (MMSE score: 11-20), and severely impaired (MMSE score: 0-10). Barthel activity of daily living score was calculated on admission, at 2 and 6 weeks (if appropriate), and at discharge to assess level of independence and improvement or deterioration in function. Information relating to mortality, discharge destination, and length of stay was also collected. RESULTS: After adjusting for comorbidities and age, all four groups showed improvement in Barthel score from admission to discharge. This improvement was highly significant (P = .005) in participants with normal cognition and mild to moderate impairment. Severely impaired participants also made significant improvement (P = .01). Length of stay was significantly longer for participants with lower cognitive scores. Discharge of 50% of participants occurred by 26, 28, 38, and 47 days for Groups 1 to 4, respectively (P = .001). Higher rates of institutionalization and mortality (P = .02) were associated with lower MMSE score. CONCLUSION: All participants improved functionally regardless of cognition. Likelihood of institutionalization, mortality, length of stay, and adverse incidents was higher with lower MMSE scores.

Fall risk-assessment tools compared with clinical judgment: an evaluation in a rehabilitation ward.

OBJECTIVES: to compare the use of two falls risk-identification tools (Downton and STRATIFY) with clinical judgment (based upon the observation of wandering behaviour) in predicting falls of medically stable patients in a rehabilitation ward for older people. METHODS: in a prospective observational study, with blinded end-point evaluation, 200 patients admitted to a geriatric rehabilitation hospital had a STRATIFY and Downton Fall Risk assessment and were observed for wandering behaviour. RESULTS: wandering had a predictive accuracy of 78%. A total of 157/200 were identified correctly compared to 100/200 using the Downton score (P < 0.0001 95%, CI 0.18-0.42), or 93/200 using STRATIFY (P < 0.0001; 95% CI 0.15-0.37). The Downton and STRATIFY tools demonstrated predictive accuracies of 50% and 46.5%, respectively, with no statistical significance between the two (P = 0.55; 95% CI 0.77-1.71). Sensitivity for predicting falls using wandering was 43.1% (22/51). This was significantly worse than Downton 92.2% (47/51: P < 0.001) and STRATIFY 82.3% (42/51: P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: this study showed that clinical observation had a higher accuracy than two used falls risk-assessment tools. However it was significantly less sensitive implying that fewer patients who fell were correctly identified as being at risk.