Effectiveness of ‘rehabilitation in the home’ service
Sneha Bharadwaj A C and David Bruce BA Department of Community & Geriatric Medicine, Fremantle Hospital and Health Service, Alma Street, Fremantle, WA 6160, Australia.
B School of Medicine & Pharmacology, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia. Email: dbruce@cyllene.uwa.edu.au
C Corresponding author. Email: Sneha.Bharadwaj@health.wa.gov.au
Australian Health Review 38(5) 506-509 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH14049
Submitted: 11 March 2014 Accepted: 10 June 2014 Published: 7 August 2014
Journal Compilation © AHHA 2014
Abstract
Objectives Rehabilitation in the home (RITH) services increasingly provide hospital substitution services. This study examines clinical outcomes in a large metropolitan RITH service in Western Australia.
Methods The 2010 database of Fremantle Hospital RITH service was interrogated to identify the clinical profile of cases, length of stay (LOS) and clinical outcomes. Negative outcomes included death or unexpected hospital readmission. Multiple logistic regression modelling was used to explore associations with negative outcomes. This study was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board which deemed it not to require ethics approval.
Results There were 1348 cases managed by RITH: 70.6% were aged ≥ 65 years; elective joint replacement (29.7%), medical conditions (20%), stroke (13%), hip fractures (10%) were major contributors. The majority (93.3%) were discharged after a median of 9 days. Negative outcomes occurred in 90 cases (6.7%), including five deaths (0.4%) and 85 readmissions (6.3%). Independent associations with negative outcomes included older age (odds ratio (OR) (95% CI); 1.02, P = 0.006), orthopaedic conditions (OR 1.91, P = 0.004) and longer inpatient LOS (OR 1.96, P = 0.003). Age above 80 years was independently associated with risk of negative outcome (OR 2.99, P = 0.004).
Conclusions RITH had a low rate of negative outcomes. The database proved useful for monitoring quality of service provision.
What is known about the topic? Rehabilitation in the home environment has proven cost effective for multiple conditions, particularly stroke and elective joint surgery, among others, facilitating better quality of life, with reduced rates of delirium and mortality. Overall there are few negative outcomes and death is rare.
What does this paper add? Although RITH services are widely utilised as bed substitution services, there is scant literature on clinical outcomes while within the service. This study focuses on frequency of good and poor clinical outcomes in a well-established RITH service in Western Australia, suggesting pattern recognition of an at-risk cohort by identifying potentially useful predictors of poor outcome.
What are the implications for practitioners? RITH services are a safe alternative for many, including older people. Health administration databases are useful tools to monitor clinical outcomes. Clinical indicators such as older age, long hospital stay and orthopaedic diagnoses may be useful predictors of poor outcomes in such services.
References
[1] Umansky S, Holland AE, Woolley KL, Wise FM, Hunter PC. Consistent evaluation of treatment outcomes across subacute and community settings: experience of the Graduated Discharge Program. Aust Health Rev 2011; 35 486–90.| 22126954PubMed |
[2] Ward D, Drahota A, Gal D, Severs M, Dean TP. Care home versus hospital and own home environments for rehabilitation of older people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; 4 CD003164
| 18843641PubMed |
[3] de Jonge DM, Jones A, Phillips R, Chung M. Understanding the essence of home: older people’s experience of home in Australia. Occup Ther Int 2011; 18 39–47.
| Understanding the essence of home: older people’s experience of home in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21341342PubMed |
[4] Forster A, Young J. Community rehabilitation for older people: day hospital or home-based services? Age Ageing 2011; 40 2–4.
| Community rehabilitation for older people: day hospital or home-based services?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21098621PubMed |
[5] Glenny C, Stolee P, Husted J, Thompson M, Berg K. Comparison of the responsiveness of the FIM and the interRAI post acute care assessment instrument in rehabilitation of older adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 91 1038–43.
| Comparison of the responsiveness of the FIM and the interRAI post acute care assessment instrument in rehabilitation of older adults.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20537315PubMed |
[6] Reistetter TA, Graham JE, Deutsch A, Granger CV, Markello S, Ottenbacher KJ. Utility of functional status for classifying community versus institutional discharges after inpatient rehabilitation for stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 91 345–50.
| Utility of functional status for classifying community versus institutional discharges after inpatient rehabilitation for stroke.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20298822PubMed |
[7] Prvu Bettger JA, Stineman MG. Effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation services in postacute care: state-of-the-science. A review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 88 1526–34.
| Effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation services in postacute care: state-of-the-science. A review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17964900PubMed |
[8] Sylliaas H, Brovold T, Wyller TB, Bergland A. Progressive strength training in older patients after hip fracture: a randomised controlled trial. Age Ageing 2011; 40 221–7.
| Progressive strength training in older patients after hip fracture: a randomised controlled trial.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21247887PubMed |
[9] Sylliaas H, Brovold T, Wyller TB, Bergland A. Prolonged strength training in older patients after hip fracture: a randomised controlled trial. Age Ageing 2012; 41 206–12.
| Prolonged strength training in older patients after hip fracture: a randomised controlled trial.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22198639PubMed |
[10] Korczak D, Huber B, Steinhauser G, Dietl M.. Outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation: rehabilitation models and shortcomings in outpatient aftercare. GMS Health Technology Assessment 2010; 6 Doc11
| 21289884PubMed |
[11] Tralongo P, Ferrau F, Borsellino N, Verderame F, Caruso M, Giuffrida D, Butera A, Gebbia V. Cancer patient-centered home care: a new model for health care in oncology. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2011; 7 387–92.
| 21941445PubMed |
[12] Clegg A, Barber S, Young J, Forster A, Iliffe S. The Home-Based Older People’s Exercise (HOPE) trial: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2011; 12 143
| The Home-Based Older People’s Exercise (HOPE) trial: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21651805PubMed |
[13] Dow B, Black K, Bremner F, Fearn M. Evaluation of home-based rehabilitation in Victoria: final report. Melbourne: National Ageing Research Institute; 2004.
[14] Newton N, Ellis A, Toneman M. National benchmarking survey: services providing allied health intervention in the home. Perth, WA: South Metropolitan Area Health Service, Department of Health; 2008.
