The efficacy of multidisciplinary rehabilitation in stable multiple sclerosis patients. Results at 1 year of outpatient multidisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation: a randomised controlled trial. Traumatic brain injury: efficacy of multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Day hospital rehabilitation--effectiveness and cost in the elderly: a randomised controlled trial. Effectiveness of rehabilitation intervention in persons with multiple sclerosis: a randomised controlled trial. Psychiatric rehabilitation as a deterrent to recidivism. The impact of inpatient rehabilitation on progressive multiple sclerosis. Randomized controlled trial of integrated (managed) care pathway for stroke rehabilitation. Randomized controlled trial of an early discharge rehabilitation service: the Belfast Community Stroke Trial.
To evaluate the short-term efficacy of multidisciplinary, inpatient rehabilitation of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients.
                A double-blind, randomized, parallel group design was used. The intervention group were offered comprehensive, multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation at the Haslev MS Hospital for an average of 35.5 days, while the control group received no treatment related to the study. All patients were examined in their homes twice with a 10-week interval. The rehabilitation of the intervention group started 2-3 weeks after the first examination and ended 2-3 weeks before the second examination. Impairment was assessed by the Multiple Sclerosis Impairment Scale and the Expanded Disability Status Scale. Disability was assessed by means of Guy's Neurological Disability Scale. Two specific scales were used to assess upper limb function and ambulation: The Nine-Hole Peg Test and timed 10-metre walking. Patients' own perception of bodily pain, bladder symptoms, spasticity, fatigue, impaired walking and transfers were recorded using visual analogue scales. Finally, quality of life was assessed using the Life Appreciation and Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Functional Assessment in Multiple Sclerosis.
                Two hundred and thirty-three patients were screened and of those 38 were included for treatment and 52 as controls.
                We found no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any of the outcome measures.
                Although the study was underpowered, the negative outcome exposes the difficulties in quantitative analyses of the efficacy of multidisciplinary rehabilitation, which is liable to confounding factors such as variation in the indication for treatment, in the placebo effect, and in the reliability and responsiveness of the outcome measures. Pulmonary rehabilitation seems to be an effective intervention in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We undertook a randomised controlled trial to assess the effect of outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation on use of health care and patients' wellbeing over 1 year.
                200 patients with disabling chronic lung disease (the majority with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) were randomly assigned a 6-week multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme (18 visits) or standard medical management. Use of health services was assessed from hospital and general-practice records. Analysis was by intention to treat.
                There was no difference between the rehabilitation (n=99) and control (n=101) groups in the number of patients admitted to hospital (40 vs 41) but the number of days these patients spent in hospital differed significantly (mean 10.4 [SD 9.7] vs 21.0 [20.7], p=0.022). The rehabilitation group had more primary-care consultations at the general-practitioner's premises than did the control group (8.6 [6.8] vs 7.3 [8.3], p=0.033) but fewer primary-care home visits (1.5 [2.8] vs 2.8 [4.6], p=0.037). Compared with control, the rehabilitation group also showed greater improvements in walking ability and in general and disease-specific health status.
                For patients chronically disabled by obstructive pulmonary disease, an intensive, multidisciplinary, outpatient programme of rehabilitation is an effective intervention, in the short term and the long term, that decreases use of health services. To establish efficacy of a coordinated multidisciplinary rehabilitation service for severe head injury, provided at Hunters Moor Regional Rehabilitation Centre.
                A quasi-experimental design to compare treatment effects between two groups. The first group received a coordinated, multidisciplinary regional rehabilitation service; the other, a single discipline approach provided by local, district hospitals. Follow-up was for 2 years postinjury.
                Fifty-six consecutive severe head injury admissions, with an identified main caregiver, referred for rehabilitation within 4 weeks of their injury.
                The Barthel index, the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), and the Newcastle Independence Assessment Form (NIAF), a newly developed, real-life, comprehensive measure. In addition, caregivers completed the General Health Questionnaire.
                The group that received coordinated multidisciplinary rehabilitation not only demonstrated significant gains throughout the study period but also maintained treatment effect after input ended. Furthermore, caregivers of this group had significantly reduced levels of distress. The comparison group, despite initial lower injury severity and shorter hospital stay, did not demonstrate equivalent gains or any posttreatment effect.
                The results show the efficacy of a comprehensive, specialist multidisciplinary regional service. There are significant implications for service provision for people with severe traumatic head injury. The effectiveness and cost of day hospital care in rehabilitation were studied in a randomised controlled trial in 120 elderly patients who were assessed at referral and six weeks and five months later in activities of daily living skills and mood. Day hospital patients were compared with a control group, who were managed as they would have been before the availability of day hospital care. Day hospital patients showed a significant improvement in performance of activities of daily living at six weeks but not at five months; however, they had a sustained improvement in mood. The cost of day hospital rehabilitation was one third greater than that of rehabilitation by alternative means. In its current form the geriatric day hospital is not a cheap alternative to other means of rehabilitation. Expensive components of the day hospital should be critically re-examined and renewed emphasis placed on sufficient inpatient beds, domiciliary services, and day care centres. A stratified, randomised, waitlist controlled study over 12 months assessed the effectiveness of rehabilitation in persons with multiple sclerosis (MS) in an Australian community cohort.
                Patients with definite MS (n = 101) recruited from a tertiary hospital database, randomised to a treatment group (n = 49) for individualised rehabilitation programme or a control waitlist group (n = 52). Functional Independence Measure (FIM) was used to assess "activity" while the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29) and General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28) assessed "participation" and quality of life (QoL). Assessments were at baseline and 12 months.
                Analysis of data from 98 patients (treatment n = 48, control n = 50) showed reduced disability in the treatment group, with statistically significant differences in post-treatment FIM motor scores for the two groups (p<0.001). There was a clinical and statistically significant improvement in FIM (motor) total scores (p<0.001), and the FIM motor domains of: transfer (p<0.001), locomotion (p<0.001), self-care (p<0.001) and the FIM cognitive subscale (p<0.016). In the treated group, 70.8% improved compared with 13% of controls. Significantly more patients in the control group deteriorated over the study period (58.7% vs 16.7%; p<0.001). There were no differences between the control and treatment group scores on the MSIS-physical (p = 0.18), MSIS-psychological (p = 0.45) or GHQ subscales.
                An individualised rehabilitation programme reduces disability in persons with MS compared with no intervention. The impact of rehabilitation on QoL needs further evaluation. More information on the effectiveness of the various components of the multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes are now needed. Australian clinical trials registry: Trials registration number: ACTRNO12605000676617. An experiment was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a comprehensive rehabilitation program in deterring the rehospitalization of severely distributed psychiatric outpatients. A total of 102 clients were randomly assigned at intake to either a fulltime, comprehensive rehabilitation program or a part-time supportive treatment program at a separate location. After nine months, only 14 per cent of the subjects in comprehensive treatment had been rehospitalized, compared with 44 per cent of the subjects in supportive treatment. Regardless of treatment method, subjects who had histories of more frequent hospitalization and subjects who encountered higher levels of life-event stress during the follow-up period were more likely to relapse. The authors conclude that the great reduction in hospital days for subjects in the comprehensive treatment more than compensated for the program's higher cost. One of the primary aims of rehabilitation for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is to reduce their levels of disability and handicap, yet little systematic research into the outcomes of this intervention has been undertaken. This stratified, randomized, wait-list controlled study evaluated the effectiveness of a short period of multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation in people with MS. Sixty-six patients in the progressive phase of the disease were assessed at 0 and 6 weeks with validated measures of impairment (Expanded Disability Status Scale and Functional Systems), disability (Functional Independence Measure), and handicap (London Handicap Scale). Both groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, disease duration and severity, disability, and handicap. At the end of 6 weeks, although the level of impairment in both groups remained the same, those who participated in a short period of inpatient rehabilitation (average of 25 days) significantly improved their level of disability and handicap compared with those in the wait-list control group. Despite unchanging impairment, inpatient rehabilitation resulted in reduced disability and handicap in patients with progressive MS. Integrated Care Pathway (ICP) is an organized, goal-defined, and time-managed plan that has the potential of facilitating timely interdisciplinary coordination, improving discharge planning, and reducing length of hospital stay.
                An ICP for stroke rehabilitation based on evidence of best practice, professional standards, and existing infrastructure was developed. Its effectiveness was tested in 152 stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation who were randomized to receive ICP care coordinated by an experienced nurse (n=76) or conventional multidisciplinary care (n=76).
                The age, sex, premorbid functional ability, and stroke characteristics of the 2 groups were comparable. There were no differences in mortality rates (10 [13%] versus 6 [8%]), institutionalization (10 [13%] versus 16 [21%]), or length of hospital stay (50+/-19 versus 45+/-23 days) between patients receiving ICP or multidisciplinary care. Patients receiving conventional multidisciplinary care improved significantly faster between 4 and 12 weeks (median change in Barthel Activities of Daily Living Index 6 versus 2; P<0.01) and had higher Quality of Life scores at 12 weeks (65 versus 59; P=0.07) and 6 months (72 versus 63; P<0.005). There were no significant differences in the mean duration of physiotherapy (42.8+/-41.2 versus 39.4+/-36.4 hours) or occupational therapy (8.5+/-7.5 versus 8.0+/-7.5 hours) received between the 2 groups.
                ICP management offered no benefit over conventional multidisciplinary care on a stroke rehabilitation unit. Functional recovery was faster and Quality of Life outcomes better in patients receiving conventional multidisciplinary care. To compare a community-based multidisciplinary stroke team (CST) approach with hospital-based rehabilitation in terms of hospital stay, functioning, quality of life, and service use and costs.
                Stroke patients who met pre-agreed criteria were allocated randomly to the CST service (n=59) or to usual inpatient rehabilitation and follow-up care (n=54). Assessments were completed at randomization and 12 months later. Caregiver strain and satisfaction (n=55) were also assessed. Cost data were collected for a subsample of 38 patients.
                Almost 80% of surviving patients (n=691) were discharged home and a small number (n=55) were readmitted. Approximately 17% (113/649) were randomized. There were no statistically significant differences in hospital duration, costs, or outcome measures at baseline and 12 months except for higher satisfaction reported by CST patients. Overall, both groups recorded improvement in most domains over time. Carers reported a high level of satisfaction although the level of strain among carers is cause for concern. The community group (n=18) cost less than the hospital group (n=20).
                A mixed model of hospital-based and community-based rehabilitation services is likely to lead to increased patient choice and satisfaction and a potential reduction in bed pressures for less severe stroke patients.
While there was a tendency to a better overall result in patients receiving multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation, these results were not statistically significant.
Future trials of multidisciplinary rehabilitation should aim to establish both effectiveness and cost effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation overall, rather than evaluate its components.