Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry logoLink to Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry
. 2005 May;76(5):723–728. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2004.035956

Evaluating neurorehabilitation: lessons from routine data collection

J Freeman 1, J Hobart 1, E Playford 1, B Undy 1, A Thompson 1
PMCID: PMC1739616  PMID: 15834035

Abstract

Background: Clinical databases are being used increasingly to assess outcomes in healthcare services to provide evidence of clinical effectiveness in routine clinical practice.

Objectives: To explore the benefits of a database for routine collection of clinical outcomes within an inpatient neurorehabilitation setting; determine the effectiveness of inpatient neurorehabilitation in a range of neurological conditions; and determine variables influencing change in functional outcome.

Methods: Over a nine year period, demographic and diagnostic characteristics were collected for the 1458 patients admitted consecutively to a neurorehabilitation unit. The level of function was measured on admission and discharge using the Barthel Index (BI) and Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Patient perception of rehabilitation benefit was evaluated using visual analogue scales (VAS).

Results: Of the 1413 patients (mean (SD) age 48 (14.8), range 16 to 87) whose length of stay was more than 10 days (mean 34 (24) range 10 to 184), 282 had stroke, 614 multiple sclerosis, 248 spinal cord injuries, 93 a neuromuscular condition, and 176 other brain pathology. Patients improved in functional ability as measured by both BI and the FIM motor subscale (effect sizes 0.93 to 1.44 and 1.01 to 1.48, respectively). VAS ratings demonstrated high levels of patient perceived benefit. Diagnosis, functional activity score on admission, and length of stay were significant predictors of functional gain, explaining 44% of the variability in the change scores.

Conclusions: Systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of standardised clinical outcomes data are feasible within routine clinical practice, and provide evidence that inpatient rehabilitation is effective in improving functional level in neurologically impaired patients. These data complement those of clinical trials and are useful in informing and developing clinical and research practice.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (76.7 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Black N. High-quality clinical databases: breaking down barriers. Lancet. 1999 Apr 10;353(9160):1205–1206. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)00108-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ. 1996 May 11;312(7040):1215–1218. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7040.1215. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Black Nick, Payne Mary. Improving the use of clinical databases. BMJ. 2002 May 18;324(7347):1194–1194. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1194. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Black Nick. Using clinical databases in practice. BMJ. 2003 Jan 4;326(7379):2–3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7379.2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Carey R. G., Seibert J. H., Posavac E. J. Who makes the most progress in inpatient rehabilitation? An analysis of functional gain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988 May;69(5):337–343. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Chan L., Houck P., Prela C. M., MacLehose R. F. Using medicare databases for outcomes research in rehabilitation medicine. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2001 Jun;80(6):474–480. doi: 10.1097/00002060-200106000-00018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Edwards S. G. M., Playford E. D., Hobart J. C., Thompson A. J. Comparison of physician outcome measures and patients' perception of benefits of inpatient neurorehabilitation. BMJ. 2002 Jun 22;324(7352):1493–1493. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7352.1493. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Freeman J. A., Langdon D. W., Hobart J. C., Thompson A. J. The impact of inpatient rehabilitation on progressive multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 1997 Aug;42(2):236–244. doi: 10.1002/ana.410420216. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Freeman J. A., Playford E. D., Nicholas R. S., Thompson A. J. A neurological rehabilitation unit: audit of activity and outcome. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1996 Jan-Feb;30(1):21–26. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Granger C. V., Cotter A. C., Hamilton B. B., Fiedler R. C. Functional assessment scales: a study of persons after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993 Feb;74(2):133–138. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hobart J. C., Lamping D. L., Freeman J. A., Langdon D. W., McLellan D. L., Greenwood R. J., Thompson A. J. Evidence-based measurement: which disability scale for neurologic rehabilitation? Neurology. 2001 Aug 28;57(4):639–644. doi: 10.1212/wnl.57.4.639. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Johnston Mark V., Wood Kenneth D., Fiedler Roger. Characteristics of effective and efficient rehabilitation programs. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 Mar;84(3):410–418. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2003.50009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Johnston Mark V., Wood Kenneth D., Fiedler Roger. Characteristics of effective and efficient rehabilitation programs. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 Mar;84(3):410–418. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2003.50009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Langdon D. W., Thompson A. J. Multiple sclerosis: a preliminary study of selected variables affecting rehabilitation outcome. Mult Scler. 1999 Apr;5(2):94–100. doi: 10.1177/135245859900500205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Lewsey J. D., Leyland A. H., Murray G. D., Boddy F. A. Using routine data to complement and enhance the results of randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(22):1–55. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. MAHONEY F. I., BARTHEL D. W. FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION: THE BARTHEL INDEX. Md State Med J. 1965 Feb;14:61–65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Motheral Brenda, Brooks John, Clark Mary Ann, Crown William H., Davey Peter, Hutchins Dave, Martin Bradley C., Stang Paul. A checklist for retrospective database studies--report of the ISPOR Task Force on Retrospective Databases. Value Health. 2003 Mar-Apr;6(2):90–97. doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.00242.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Padkin A., Rowan K., Black N. Using high quality clinical databases to complement the results of randomised controlled trials: the case of recombinant human activated protein C. BMJ. 2001 Oct 20;323(7318):923–926. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7318.923. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Rossiter D. A., Edmondson A., al-Shahi R., Thompson A. J. Integrated care pathways in multiple sclerosis rehabilitation: completing the audit cycle. Mult Scler. 1998 Apr;4(2):85–89. doi: 10.1177/135245859800400208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Wade Derick T. Selection criteria for rehabilitation services. Clin Rehabil. 2003 Mar;17(2):115–118. doi: 10.1191/0269215503cr591ed. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Walsh Thomas L., Hanscom Brett, Lurie Jon D., Weinstein James N. Is a condition-specific instrument for patients with low back pain/leg symptoms really necessary? The responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index, MODEMS, and the SF-36. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003 Mar 15;28(6):607–615. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000050654.97387.DF. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. van der Putten J. J., Hobart J. C., Freeman J. A., Thompson A. J. Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel index and the Functional Independence Measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999 Apr;66(4):480–484. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.66.4.480. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES