Lower-limb amputee rehabilitation in Australia: analysis of a national data set 2004-10
Brenton G. Hordacre A D , Tara Stevermuer B , Frances Simmonds B , Maria Crotty A and Kathy Eagar CA Department of Rehabilitation, Aged and Extended Care, Flinders University, Repatriation General Hospital, Daws Road, Daw Park, SA 5041, Australia. Email: maria.crotty@health.sa.gov.au
B Australasian Rehabilitation Outcomes Centre, Australian Health Services Research Institute, Innovation Campus, University of Wollongong, Building 234 (iC Enterprise 1), Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia. Email: stevermuer@uow.edu.au; francess@uow.edu.au
C Australian Health Services Research Institute, Innovation Campus, University of Wollongong, Building 234 (iC Enterprise 1), Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia. Email: keagar@uow.edu.au
D Corresponding author. Email: brenton.hordacre@health.sa.gov.au
Australian Health Review 37(1) 41-47 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH11138
Submitted: 10 January 2012 Accepted: 13 May 2012 Published: 19 November 2012
Abstract
Objective. Examine demographics, clinical characteristics and rehabilitation outcomes of lower-limb amputees, using the Australasian Rehabilitation Outcomes Centre (AROC) database.
Methods. Lower-limb amputee rehabilitation separations between 2004 and 2010 were identified using AROC impairment codes 5.3–5.7.1 Analysis was conducted by year, impairment code, Australian National Sub-acute and Non-Acute Patient (AN-SNAP) classification (S2–224, Functional Independence Measure (FIM) motor(Mot) score 72–91; S2–225, FIM (Mot) score 14–71) and states of Australia.
Results. Mean length of stay (LOS) for all lower-limb amputee episodes was 36.1 days (95% confidence interval (CI): 35.4–36.9). Majority of episodes were unilateral below knee (63.6%), males (71.8%) with a mean age of 67.9 years (95% CI: 67.6–68.3). Year-on-year analysis revealed a trend for increasing LOS and decreasing age. Analysis by impairment code demonstrated no significant difference in rehabilitation outcomes. Analysis by AN-SNAP found that LOS was 16.2 days longer for S2–225 than for S2–224 (95% CI: 14.7–17.8, P < 0.001), and FIM (Mot) change was 12.0 points higher for S2–225 than for S2–224 (95% CI: 11.5–12.6, P < 0.001). Analysis by states revealed significant variation in LOS, FIM (Mot) change and FIM (Mot) efficiency which may be associated with variations in organisation of rehabilitation services across states.
Conclusion. Although amputees represented a comparatively small proportion of all rehabilitation episodes in Australia, their LOS was significant. Unlike many other rehabilitation conditions, there was no evidence of decreasing LOS over time. AN-SNAP classes were effective in distinguishing rehabilitation outcomes, and could potentially be used more effectively in planning rehabilitation programs.
What is known about the topic? Literature reporting on the rehabilitation outcomes of cohorts of lower-limb amputees in Australia is limited to individual sites. No previous literature was identified that reported national data.
What does this paper add? This study investigates amputee rehabilitation at a national level over a 7-year observation period (2004–10) and comprises 6588 episodes. It reports the national demographics, clinical characteristics and rehabilitation outcomes, with the aim of identifying findings that have implications for practitioners.
What are the implications for practitioners? Although only a small proportion of all episodes in the AROC database, this subset of lower-limb amputee episodes has provided a useful snapshot of the current state of amputee rehabilitation in Australia. We believe these findings have significant implications for practitioners in delivery of amputee rehabilitation services across Australia. Practitioners may benefit from adjusting service delivery based upon the decreasing age of lower limb amputees. Findings from this study also indicate that AN-SNAP classifications are effective in discriminating amputee rehabilitation outcomes and may be used to streamline rehabilitation services and provide a more efficient and effective rehabilitation service to prevent further increases in LOS.
Additional keywords: AN-SNAP classification, Functional Independence Measure, FIM Motor, rehabilitation centres, rehabilitation outcome.
References
[1] Australian Health Services Research Institute; University of Wollongong, Australasian Rehabilitation Outcomes Centre. AROC Impairment Codes; 2007. Available at http://ahsri.uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/@web/@chsd/@aroc/documents/doc/uow094496.pdf. [Verified 29 August 2012][2] Moxey PW, Gogalniceanu P, Hinchliffe RJ, Loftus IM, Jones KJ, Thompson MM, et al Lower extremity amputations – a review of global variability in incidence. Diabet Med 2011; 28 1144–53.
| Lower extremity amputations – a review of global variability in incidence.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC3MfktFagtg%3D%3D&md5=92e909c25381bd3cd01657c36901e99eCAS | 21388445PubMed |
[3] Nehler MR, Coll JR, Hiatt WR, Regensteiner JG, Schnickel GT, Klenke WA, et al Functional outcome in a contemporary series of major lower extremity amputations. J Vasc Surg 2003; 38 7–14.
| Functional outcome in a contemporary series of major lower extremity amputations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12844082PubMed |
[4] Pernot HFM, Winnubst GMM, Cluitmans JJM, De Witte LP. Amputees in Limburg: incidence, morbidity and mortality, prosthetic supply, care utilisation and functional level after one year. Prosthet Orthot Int 2000; 24 90–6.
| Amputees in Limburg: incidence, morbidity and mortality, prosthetic supply, care utilisation and functional level after one year.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3crgvVOgsg%3D%3D&md5=15b769db4bcf1f3f0c370add7e935eb6CAS |
[5] Stone PA, Flaherty SK, Hayes JD, AbuRahma AF. Lower extremity amputation: a contemporary series. W V Med J 2007; 103 14–8.
| 18309862PubMed |
[6] Australian Institute Of Health And Welfare. Diabetes: Australian facts 2008. Canberra (Australia): Australian Institute of Health And Welfare; 2008.
[7] Pell JP, Donnan PT, Fowkes FGR, Ruckley CV. Quality of life following lower limb amputation for peripheral arterial disease. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 1993; 7 448–51.
| 1:STN:280:DyaK3szmsFKksg%3D%3D&md5=84e30941aef889c658659bf6ec929848CAS |
[8] Feinglass J, Brown JL, LoSasso A, Sohn MW, Manheim L, Shah S, et al Rates of lower-extremity amputation and arterial reconstruction in the United States, 1979 to 1996. Am J Public Health 1999; 89 1222–1227.
| Rates of lower-extremity amputation and arterial reconstruction in the United States, 1979 to 1996.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK1MzmtFGktA%3D%3D&md5=6bf8c9361a4b466902b8b4c1579d75f2CAS | 10432910PubMed |
[9] Nowygrod R, Egorova N, Greco G, Anderson P, Gelijns A, Moskowitz A, et al Trends, complications, and mortality in peripheral vascular surgery. J Vasc Surg 2006; 43 205–16.
| Trends, complications, and mortality in peripheral vascular surgery.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16476588PubMed |
[10] Eagar K, Gordon R, Hodkinson A, Green J, Eagar L, Erven J, et al. The Australian National Sub-Acute and Non-Acute Patient Classification (AN-SNAP): report of the national sub-acute and non-acute casemix classification study. Centre For Health Service Development: University of Wollongong; 1997. Available at http://ro.uow.edu.au/chsd/7/
[11] Green J, Gordon R. The development of Version 2 of the AN-SNAP casemix classification system. Aust Health Rev 2007; 31 68–78.
| The development of Version 2 of the AN-SNAP casemix classification system.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[12] Stineman MG, Shea JA, Jette A, Tassoni CJ, Ottenbacher KJ, Fiedler R, et al The Functional Independence Measure: tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across 20 diverse impairment categories. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77 1101–8.
| The Functional Independence Measure: tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across 20 diverse impairment categories.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK2s%2FosFekug%3D%3D&md5=10d151ffcd315b8d68db0d3d44d39c36CAS | 8931518PubMed |
[13] Kidd D, Stewart G, Baldry J, Johnson J, Rossiter D, Petruckevitch A, et al The Functional Independence Measure: a comparative validity and reliability study. Disabil Rehabil 1995; 17 10–4.
| The Functional Independence Measure: a comparative validity and reliability study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK2M7mtFOktw%3D%3D&md5=d59e75a147f47cea9e278e3598ef9bf3CAS | 7858276PubMed |
[14] Dodds TA, Martin DP, Stolov WC, Deyo RA. A validation of the functional independence measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993; 74 531–6.
| A validation of the functional independence measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK3s3ls1OhtA%3D%3D&md5=4680d4fa85689e4af2cbcee5cc18f3a8CAS | 8489365PubMed |
[15] Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, Fiedler RC. The reliability of the Functional Independence Measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77 1226–32.
| The reliability of the Functional Independence Measure: a quantitative review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK2s7jtVGnsg%3D%3D&md5=23c55dec0175cf32cbf8afeb6a34b21eCAS | 8976303PubMed |
[16] Wu J, Chan T, Bowring G. Functional outcomes of major lower limb amputation 1994–2006: a modern series. J Prosthet Orthot 2010; 22 152–6.
| Functional outcomes of major lower limb amputation 1994–2006: a modern series.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[17] Lim T, Finlayson A, Thorpe J, Sieunarine K, Mwipatayi B, Brady A, et al Outcomes of a contemporary amputation series. ANZ J Surg 2006; 76 300–5.
| Outcomes of a contemporary amputation series.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16768686PubMed |
[18] Simmonds F, Stevermuer T. The AROC annual report: the state of rehabilitation in Australia 2005. Aust Health Rev 2007; 31 31–53.
| The AROC annual report: the state of rehabilitation in Australia 2005.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[19] Simmonds F, Stevermuer T. The AROC annual report: the state of rehabilitation in Australia 2006. Aust Health Rev 2008; 32 85–110.
| The AROC annual report: the state of rehabilitation in Australia 2006.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18241152PubMed |
[20] Wild S, Roglic G, Green A, Sicree R, King H. Global prevelance of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care 2004; 27 1047–53.
| Global prevelance of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15111519PubMed |
[21] Eckel RH, Grundy SM, Zimmet PZ. The metabolic syndrome. Lancet 2005; 365 1415–28.
| The metabolic syndrome.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2MXjsVegtbg%3D&md5=d76b189a467af79137f4e991e2299b2aCAS | 15836891PubMed |
[22] Hu FB. Globalization of diabetes: the role of diet, lifestyle, and genes. Diabetes Care 2011; 34 1249–57.
| Globalization of diabetes: the role of diet, lifestyle, and genes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21617109PubMed |
[23] Sansam K, Neumann V, O’Connor R, Bhakta B. Predicting walking ability following lower limb amputation: a systematic review of the literature. J Rehabil Med 2009; 41 593–603.
| Predicting walking ability following lower limb amputation: a systematic review of the literature.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19565152PubMed |
