Relationship Between Level of Economic Development, Age, and Etiology of Spinal Cord Injury: A Cross-Sectional Survey From 22 Countries.

OBJECTIVE: To examine relationships between age and spinal cord injury (SCI) and cause of SCI and how this depends on economic development. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Community, 22 countries representing all stages of economic development. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 12,591 adults with SCI (N=12,591). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Interactions between age at injury and gross domestic product per capita based on purchasing power parity (GDP PPP) quartiles calculated with the application of logistic regression with the Maximum Likelihood estimator. Independence between SCI cause and age was assessed with the Wald test. RESULTS: In persons with traumatic SCI, younger age was associated with a higher likelihood of injury in motor vehicle collisions, whereas older individuals had a greater chance of SCI due to falls. Associations between increased likelihood of high-energy traumatic SCI and younger age, low-energy traumatic SCI with older age, nontraumatic SCI with older age in persons injured in adulthood, and a higher prevalence of incomplete SCI lesions in individuals injured at an older age were revealed. Higher GDP PPP influenced positively the likelihood of low-energy SCI in older individuals and was negatively associated with the chance of sustaining SCI in motor vehicle collisions and the likelihood of having nontraumatic SCI at an older age. CONCLUSIONS: SCI in older age is predominantly because of falls and nontraumatic injuries. Higher country income is associated with an increased proportion of SCI sustained later in life because of low-energy trauma involving cervical injury and a lower chance of being because of motor vehicle collisions. An increased prevalence of nontraumatic SCI in older individuals associated with lower country income may reflect a higher exposure to socially preventable conditions and lower access to or efficacy of health care. Future studies on etiology of SCI should make the distinction between low and high falls and overcome underrepresentation of older persons.

Compliance with prescriptions for wheelchairs, walking aids, orthotics, and pressure-relieving devices in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury.

BACKGROUND: The use of adaptive equipment (AE) is the basic indication for patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). Inappropriate decisions concerning the use of AE imply treatment results, patient confidence, and patient and state costs. The present study is the first analysis of the causes of non-compliance conducted in Europe with the provision of AE in SCI patients using Wielandt and Strong's classification. AIM: The aim of this study is to analyze of the causes of non-compliance in the process of providing AE to SCI patients. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: "STOCER" Masovian Rehabilitation Centre, Konstancin-Jeziorna, Poland. POPULATION: Seventy-two patients with traumatic SCI 10 months after the completion of the acute and post-acute phases of inpatient rehabilitation. METHODS: Wielandt and Strong's classification was used to determine the causes of non-compliance with AE provisions and the present authors' questionnaire with the World Health Organisation Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF) were used to identify the risk factors of non-compliance with AE provisions. RESULTS: Non-compliance with prescribed AE provisions was reported in 34 (49.3%) of 69 study participants. Non-compliance was due to medical-related factors in 44.1%, client-related factors in 20.6%, equipment-related factors in 11.8%, and unspecific factors in 17.8% of cases. Non-compliance with AE provisions correlated with complete neurological deficit, preserved ability to walk (in case of wheelchairs), the presence of bedsores (in cases of lower extremity devices), low financial status, and lost ability to walk (in cases of AE for standing and walking). The highest percentage of non-compliance was noted for the provision of knee-ankle-foot orthosis (50%). CONCLUSIONS: The most common causes of non-compliance with AE provisions include health status improvement in the patient and high cost of the device. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: These results can be helpful for more effective treatment planning and the avoidance of unnecessary reimbursement costs covered by the state and users.

Role of diversity in assembling of rehabilitation teams in Central Europe.

BACKGROUND: Multiprofessional teamwork in physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) allows achieving patient-centered goals in accordance with the assumptions of the bio-psycho-social model of functioning. Team composition and methods of collaboration depend of the specificity of goals to be achieved, as well local contextual factors. International comparative studies on rehabilitation teamwork are lacking, despite data on how teams differ between countries are crucial for the process of harmonization of PRM practice across Europe. AIM: To compare models of collaboration within rehabilitation teams in Central Europe. DESIGN: A cross-sectional explorative study. SETTING: The data were collected in Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia between February and June 2018. POPULATION: PRM physicians. METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire inquiring of rehabilitation teamwork details was spread through national PRM societies, and other organizations associating PRM physicians. An ordered logit regression was applied to analyze the results. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 455 respondents. Significant differences between the studied countries in the composition of rehabilitation teams and frequencies of team meetings were detected. In the analyzed population of PRM physicians, we found positive associations between the chance of participation in team meetings and working in a hospital, the amount of time devoted to PRM practice, and older age. The chance for patients and caregivers to participate in rehabilitation team meetings was correlated with PRM physician's hospital practice, activity as a PRM teacher, older age and devoting more time to PRM practice. Country specificities of rehabilitation team content were analyzed with regards to local economic, legal, and historical backgrounds, and availability of human resources. Underrepresentation of key professionals (e.g. occupational therapists, orthotists/prosthetists), inadequate distribution of professionals in healthcare and as well as outdated educational systems in some countries may affect the efficacy of the comprehensive care in rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: Central European countries differ in rehabilitation teamwork with regard to the contribution of professionals, meeting frequencies, and participation of patients and caregivers. Well-designed studies on teamwork models delineating ways to improve teamwork efficacy are in demand. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Between-country diversity of rehabilitation team content should be considered while planning activities aimed at European harmonization of PRM practice.

Are patients referred to rehabilitation diagnosed accurately?

BACKGROUND: An accurate diagnosis of the leading health condition and comorbidities is a prerequisite for safe and effective rehabilitation. The problem of diagnostic errors in physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) has not been addressed sufficiently. The responsibility of a referring physician is to determine indications and contraindications for rehabilitation. AIM: To assess the rate of and risk factors for inaccurate referral diagnoses (RD) in patients referred to a rehabilitation facility. We hypothesized that inaccurate RD would be more common in patients: 1) referred by non-PRM physicians; 2) waiting longer for the admission; 3) older patients. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. POPULATION: One thousand randomly selected patients admitted between 2012 and 2016 to a day-rehabilitation center (DRC). SETTING: University DRC specialized in musculoskeletal diseases. METHODS: On admission all cases underwent clinical verification of RD. Inappropriateness regarding primary diagnoses and comorbidities were noted. Influence of several factors affecting probability of inaccurate RD was analyzed with multiple binary regression model applied to 6 categories of diseases. RESULTS: The rate of inaccurate RD was 25.2%. Higher frequency of inaccurate RD was noted among patients referred by non-PRM specialists (30.3% vs. 17.3% in cases referred by PRM specialists). Application of logit regression showed highly significant influence of the specialty of a referring physician on the odds of inaccurate RD (joint Wald Test χ2 (6)=38.98, P value =0.000), controlling for the influence of other variables. This may reflect a suboptimal knowledge of the rehabilitation process and a tendency to neglect of comorbidities by non-PRM specialists. The rate of inaccurate RD did not correlate with time between referral and admission (joint Wald Test of all odds ratios equal to 1, χ2 (6)=5.62, P value =0.467), however, mean and median waiting times were relatively short (35.7 and 25 days respectively). A high risk of overlooked multimorbidity was revealed in elderly patients (all odds ratios for variable age significantly higher than 1). Hypotheses 1 and 3 were confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: Over 25% of patients referred to DRC had inaccurate RD. Risk factors for inaccurate RD include referral by a non-PRM specialist and elderly age. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Verification of RD should be routinely introduced to PRM practice.