Patients' evaluation of aftercare following hospitalization for COVID-19: satisfaction and unmet needs.

BACKGROUND: Patient experiences with COVID-19 aftercare remain largely unknown. We evaluated COVID-19 aftercare from a patient perspective one year after hospitalization, assessing satisfaction and its associated factors, and unmet needs. METHODS: The Satisfaction with COVID-19 Aftercare Questionnaire (SCAQ) was developed as part of a multicenter prospective cohort study and administered one year after hospital discharge. The SCAQ assesses (1) patient satisfaction, comprising information provision, rehabilitation, follow-up by hospitals and general practitioners (GPs), the most important aftercare topics, and overall satisfaction, and (2) unmet needs. RESULTS: 487/561 (87%) COVID-19 patients completed the SCAQ, all had been discharged from the hospital between March 2020 and May 2021. Among responders, the median age of patients was 60 (IQR 54-67) years, 338 (69%) were male, and the median length of stay in the hospital was 13 (6-27) days. Patients were least satisfied with information on who could be contacted with questions when health problems arise (59% satisfied or very satisfied). Many patients (75%) received rehabilitation, most frequently community-based (70%). Across the different community-based therapies, ≥ 60% of patients were satisfied with shared-decision making and ≥ 70% with the received therapy; a majority (≥ 79%) indicated a preference for receiving the same therapy again if needed. Regarding follow-up by hospitals, 86% of patients received this follow-up, most frequently visiting a pulmonologist (96%), being generally satisfied with the received aftercare. Aftercare from GPs was received by 39% of patients, with 88% being satisfied with the GP's availability and 79% with referral to appropriate aftercare providers. Patients (> 50%) considered information-related items most important in aftercare. Overall, patients rated their satisfaction with aftercare 8/10 (7-9) points. Those who received medical rehabilitation (versus no rehabilitation, adjusted beta 0.61 [95%CI 0.11 to 1.11], p = 0.02) or aftercare by a hospital medical specialist (1.1 [0.46 to 1.64], p < 0.001) or GP (0.39 [0.053 to 0.72], p = 0.023) reported significantly higher satisfaction than those without such aftercare. Unmet needs were reported by 35% of patients, with lack of information (20%) and lack of additional aftercare and/or involvement of their GP (19%) being the most frequently reported. CONCLUSION: Despite the forced quick development of COVID-19 aftercare, patients were generally satisfied. Follow-up by healthcare professionals and information provision is important to meet patients' aftercare needs.

Multidisciplinary Treatment for Adolescents with Chronic Pain and/or Fatigue: Who Will Benefit?

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were, first, to determine the percentage of adolescents with chronic pain/fatigue successfully treated with rehabilitation treatment for chronic pain/fatigue and, second, to identify predictors for a successful rehabilitation treatment. METHODS: Treatment success is scored based on a combination of predefined clinically relevant changes in 4 outcome measures: level of pain/fatigue, school absence, physical functioning, and psychosocial functioning. A forward stepwise logistic regression analysis with treatment success as a dependent variable is performed to identify predictors for successful treatment. RESULTS: A total of 172 adolescents (mean age 16.2 [SD = 2.5]; 85.5% girls) participated. Almost half (49.6%) of the adolescents had a successful treatment. The explained variance for the complete model explaining treatment success was 49% (R2 = 0.487). Patients with a higher level of pain/fatigue and a passive coping style pretreatment improved most, and these factors could thus be indicated as predictors for successful treatment. Also, gender significantly contributed to the prediction, in favor of boys. CONCLUSIONS: Regarding the first aim, using predefined treatment success based on clinically relevant changes, half of the participants had a successful treatment. Concerning the second aim, adolescents with a high level of pain/fatigue and those with a high passive coping style pretreatment have a better ability to change their functioning during treatment. Boys benefit more than girls.

MAAS (Multi-axial Aphasia System): realistic goal setting in aphasia rehabilitation.

Treatment success in aphasia is influenced by various factors. Clinical decisions, including patient selection and decisions on frequency and content, are often guided by a clinician's implicit opinions. The Multi-axial Aphasia System (MAAS) was developed to structure linguistic, somatic, neuropsychological, psychosocial and socio-economic information on five separate axes, enabling an explicit and interdisciplinary process of clinical decision-making. The objectives of this study were to investigate the potentialities of MAAS in predicting the outcome of cognitive-linguistic treatment. A group of 58 aphasic patients were investigated prospectively. All received cognitive-linguistic treatment during a randomized, controlled study on the efficacy of lexical semantic treatment. An interdisciplinary aphasia team rated the pretreatment MAAS profiles of all patients. The team was blinded for treatment allocation and outcome. A multiple linear regression analysis was performed with the posttreatment verbal communication score as the variable to be predicted and the overall MAAS rating, age and type of treatment as predictor variables. In a second multiple regression analysis, the ratings for each of the five MAAS axes were used as candidate predictors. The team's overall rating contributed significantly to the prediction of verbal communicative ability after linguistic treatment. Of the five MAAS axes, the neuropsychological axis contributed to the prediction. An interdisciplinary approach to aphasia assessment may contribute to realistic goal setting in aphasia rehabilitation. The results of this study stress the importance of neuropsychological assessment of aphasic patients before treatment.