BACKGROUND: Regaining walking ability is a key target in geriatric rehabilitation. This study evaluated the prevalence of walking ability at (pre-)admission and related clinical characteristics in a cohort of geriatric rehabilitation inpatients; in inpatients without walking ability, feasibility and effectiveness of progressive resistance exercise training (PRT) were assessed.METHODS: Inpatients within RESORT, an observational, longitudinal cohort of geriatric rehabilitation inpatients, were stratified in those with and without ability to walk independently (defined by Functional Ambulation Classification (FAC) score ≤ 2) at admission; further subdivision was performed by pre-admission walking ability. Clinical characteristics at admission, length of stay, and changes in physical and functional performance throughout admission were compared depending on (pre-)admission walking ability. Feasibility (relative number of PRT sessions given and dropout rate) and effectiveness [change in Short Physical Performance Battery, FAC, independence in (instrumental) activities of daily living (ADL/IADL)] of PRT (n = 11) in a subset of inpatients without ability to walk independently at admission (able to walk pre-admission) were investigated compared with usual care (n = 11) (LIFT-UP study).RESULTS: Out of 710 inpatients (median age 83.5 years; 58.0% female), 52.2% were not able to walk independently at admission, and 7.6% were not able to walk pre-admission. Inpatients who were not able to walk independently at admission, had a longer length of stay, higher prevalence of cognitive impairment and frailty and malnutrition risk scores, and a lower improvement in independence in (I)ADL compared with inpatients who were able to walk at both admission and pre-admission. In LIFT-UP, the relative median number of PRT sessions given compared with the protocol (twice per weekday) was 11 out of 44. There were no dropouts. PRT improved FAC (P = 0.028) and ADL (P = 0.034) compared with usual care.CONCLUSIONS: High prevalence of inpatients who are not able to walk independently and its negative impact on independence in (I)ADL during geriatric rehabilitation highlights the importance of tailored interventions such as PRT, which resulted in improvement in FAC and ADL.
Incorporating user requirements in the design of e-rehabilitation interventions facilitates their implementation. However, insight into requirements for e-rehabilitation after stroke is lacking. This study investigated which user requirements for stroke e-rehabilitation are important to stroke patients, informal caregivers, and health professionals. The methodology consisted of a survey study amongst stroke patients, informal caregivers, and health professionals (physicians, physical therapists and occupational therapists). The survey consisted of statements about requirements regarding accessibility, usability and content of a comprehensive stroke e-health intervention (4-point Likert scale, 1=unimportant/4=important). The mean with standard deviation was the metric used to determine the importance of requirements. Patients (N=125), informal caregivers (N=43), and health professionals (N=105) completed the survey. The mean score of user requirements regarding accessibility, usability and content for stroke e-rehabilitation was 3.1 for patients, 3.4 for informal caregivers and 3.4 for health professionals. Data showed that a large number of user requirements are important and should be incorporated into the design of stroke e-rehabilitation to facilitate their implementation.
MULTIFILE
Although systematic reviews are considered as central components in evidence-based practice, they currently face an important challenge to keep up with the exponential publication rate of clinical trials. After initial publication, only a minority of the systematic reviews are updated, and it often takes multiple years before these results become accessible. Consequently, many systematic reviews are not up to date, thereby increasing the time-gap between research findings and clinical practice. A potential solution is offered by a living systematic reviews approach. These types of studies are characterized by a workflow of continuous updates which decreases the time it takes to disseminate new findings. Although living systematic reviews are specifically designed to continuously synthesize new evidence in rapidly emerging topics, they have also considerable potential in slower developing domains, such as rehabilitation science. In this commentary, we outline the rationale and required steps to transition a regular systematic review into a living systematic review. We also propose a workflow that is designed for rehabilitation science.
LINK
The pressure on the European health care system is increasing considerably: more elderly people and patients with chronic diseases in need of (rehabilitation) care, a diminishing work force and health care costs continuing to rise. Several measures to counteract this are proposed, such as reduction of the length of stay in hospitals or rehabilitation centres by improving interprofessional and person-centred collaboration between health and social care professionals. Although there is a lot of attention for interprofessional education and collaborative practice (IPECP), the consortium senses a gap between competence levels of future professionals and the levels needed in rehabilitation practice. Therefore, the transfer from tertiary education to practice concerning IPECP in rehabilitation is the central theme of the project. Regional bonds between higher education institutions and rehabilitation centres will be strengthened in order to align IPECP. On the one hand we deliver a set of basic and advanced modules on functioning according to the WHO’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health and a set of (assessment) tools on interprofessional skills training. Also, applications of this theory in promising approaches, both in education and in rehabilitation practice, are regionally being piloted and adapted for use in other regions. Field visits by professionals from practice to exchange experiences is included in this work package. We aim to deliver a range of learning materials, from modules on theory to guidelines on how to set up and run a student-run interprofessional learning ward in a rehabilitation centre. All tested outputs will be published on the INPRO-website and made available to be implemented in the core curricula in tertiary education and for lifelong learning in health care practice. This will ultimately contribute to improve functioning and health outcomes and quality of life of patients in rehabilitation centres and beyond.
Physical rehabilitation programs revolve around the repetitive execution of exercises since it has been proven to lead to better rehabilitation results. Although beginning the motor (re)learning process early is paramount to obtain good recovery outcomes, patients do not normally see/experience any short-term improvement, which has a toll on their motivation. Therefore, patients find it difficult to stay engaged in seemingly mundane exercises, not only in terms of adhering to the rehabilitation program, but also in terms of proper execution of the movements. One way in which this motivation problem has been tackled is to employ games in the rehabilitation process. These games are designed to reward patients for performing the exercises correctly or regularly. The rewards can take many forms, for instance providing an experience that is engaging (fun), one that is aesthetically pleasing (appealing visual and aural feedback), or one that employs gamification elements such as points, badges, or achievements. However, even though some of these serious game systems are designed together with physiotherapists and with the patients’ needs in mind, many of them end up not being used consistently during physical rehabilitation past the first few sessions (i.e. novelty effect). Thus, in this project, we aim to 1) Identify, by means of literature reviews, focus groups, and interviews with the involved stakeholders, why this is happening, 2) Develop a set of guidelines for the successful deployment of serious games for rehabilitation, and 3) Develop an initial implementation process and ideas for potential serious games. In a follow-up application, we intend to build on this knowledge and apply it in the design of a (set of) serious game for rehabilitation to be deployed at one of the partners centers and conduct a longitudinal evaluation to measure the success of the application of the deployment guidelines.
