A Structured Review of Antithrombotic Therapy in Peripheral Artery Disease with a Focus on Revascularization : A TASC (InterSociety Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Artery Disease) Initiative

Peripheral artery disease affects >200 million people worldwide and is associated with significant limb and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Limb revascularization is recommended to improve function and quality of life for symptomatic patients with peripheral artery disease with intermittent claudication who have not responded to medical treatment. For patients with critical limb ischemia, the goals of revascularization are to relieve pain, help wound healing, and prevent limb loss. The baseline risk of cardiovascular and limb-related events demonstrated among patients with stable peripheral artery disease is elevated after revascularization and related to atherothrombosis and restenosis. Both of these processes involve platelet activation and the coagulation cascade, forming the basis for the use of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies to optimize procedural success and reduce postprocedural cardiovascular risk. Unfortunately, few high-quality, randomized data to support use of these therapies after peripheral artery disease revascularization exist, and much of the rationale for the use of antiplatelet agents after endovascular peripheral revascularization is extrapolated from percutaneous coronary intervention literature. Consequently, guideline recommendations for antithrombotic therapy after lower limb revascularization are inconsistent and not always evidence-based. In this context, the purpose of this structured review is to assess the available randomized data for antithrombotic therapy after peripheral arterial revascularization, with a focus on clinical trial design issues that may affect interpretation of study results, and highlight areas that require further investigation

Re/connecting with “home”: a mixed methods study of service provider and patient perspectives to facilitate implementing rehabilitation in the home for reconditioning

Purpose: To explore the views of healthcare professionals and patients about the advantages and disadvantages of rehabilitation in the home (RITH) for reconditioning, and identify factors that should contribute to the successful implementation of a consensus-based RITH model for reconditioning. Materials and methods: Interviews with 24 healthcare professionals and 21 surveys (comprising Likert scale and free text responses) of inpatients undergoing rehabilitation for reconditioning provided study data. Interpretive thematic analysis was used to analyse interview data; descriptive statistics analysed Likert scale responses; patient written responses assisted with the interpretation of themes developed from the interview data. Results: Two major themes were elicited in this study: the home is a physical setting and the home is a lived space. Advantages and disadvantages of RITH for patients, carers and healthcare professionals were identified within these themes. Appropriate patient selection; effective communication with patients and carers, and within RITH teams; adequate patient and carer support; ensuring the safety of patients and staff; and education of patients, carers and healthcare professionals are essential for the satisfactory implementation of RITH. Conclusion: The concept of home shapes the delivery of RITH. Recognising the advantages and disadvantages of RITH highlights important considerations needed to successfully implement RITH for reconditioning

Developing a model for rehabilitation in the home as hospital substitution for patients requiring reconditioning: a Delphi survey in Australia

Background: Reconditioning for patients who have experienced functional decline following medical illness, surgery or treatment for cancer accounts for approximately 26% of all reported inpatient rehabilitation episodes in Australia. Rehabilitation in the home (RITH) has the potential to offer a cost-effective, high-quality alternative for appropriate patients, helping to reduce pressure on the acute care sector. This study sought to gain consensus on a model for RITH as hospital substitution for patients requiring reconditioning. Methods: A multidisciplinary group of health professionals working in the rehabilitation field was identified from across Australia and invited to participate in a three-round online Delphi survey. Survey items followed the patient journey, and also included items on practitioner roles, clinical governance, and budgetary considerations. Survey items mostly comprised statements seeking agreement on 5-point Likert scales (strongly agree to strongly disagree). Free text boxes allowed participants to qualify item answers or make comments. Analysis of quantitative data used descriptive statistics; qualitative data informed question content in subsequent survey rounds or were used in understanding item responses. Results: One-hundred and ninety-eight health professionals received an invitation to participate. Of these, 131/198 (66%) completed round 1, 101/131 (77%) completed round 2, and 78/101 (77%) completed round 3. Consensus (defined as ≥ 70% agreement or disagreement) was achieved on over 130 statements. These related to the RITH patient journey (including patient assessment and development of the care plan, case management and program provision, and patient and program outcomes); clinical governance and budgetary considerations; and included items for initial patient screening, patient eligibility and case manager roles. A consensus-based model for RITH was developed, comprising five key steps and the actions within each. Conclusions: Strong support amongst survey participants was found for RITH as hospital substitution to be widely available for appropriate patients needing reconditioning. Supportive legislative and payment systems, mechanisms that allow for the integration of primary care, and appropriate clinical governance frameworks for RITH are required, if broad implementation is to be achieved. Studies comparing clinical outcomes and cost–benefit of RITH to inpatient rehabilitation for patients requiring reconditioning are also needed

Developing a model for rehabilitation in the home as hospital substitution for patients requiring reconditioning: a Delphi survey in Australia

Abstract Background Reconditioning for patients who have experienced functional decline following medical illness, surgery or treatment for cancer accounts for approximately 26% of all reported inpatient rehabilitation episodes in Australia. Rehabilitation in the home (RITH) has the potential to offer a cost-effective, high-quality alternative for appropriate patients, helping to reduce pressure on the acute care sector. This study sought to gain consensus on a model for RITH as hospital substitution for patients requiring reconditioning. Methods A multidisciplinary group of health professionals working in the rehabilitation field was identified from across Australia and invited to participate in a three-round online Delphi survey. Survey items followed the patient journey, and also included items on practitioner roles, clinical governance, and budgetary considerations. Survey items mostly comprised statements seeking agreement on 5-point Likert scales (strongly agree to strongly disagree). Free text boxes allowed participants to qualify item answers or make comments. Analysis of quantitative data used descriptive statistics; qualitative data informed question content in subsequent survey rounds or were used in understanding item responses. Results One-hundred and ninety-eight health professionals received an invitation to participate. Of these, 131/198 (66%) completed round 1, 101/131 (77%) completed round 2, and 78/101 (77%) completed round 3. Consensus (defined as ≥ 70% agreement or disagreement) was achieved on over 130 statements. These related to the RITH patient journey (including patient assessment and development of the care plan, case management and program provision, and patient and program outcomes); clinical governance and budgetary considerations; and included items for initial patient screening, patient eligibility and case manager roles. A consensus-based model for RITH was developed, comprising five key steps and the actions within each. Conclusions Strong support amongst survey participants was found for RITH as hospital substitution to be widely available for appropriate patients needing reconditioning. Supportive legislative and payment systems, mechanisms that allow for the integration of primary care, and appropriate clinical governance frameworks for RITH are required, if broad implementation is to be achieved. Studies comparing clinical outcomes and cost–benefit of RITH to inpatient rehabilitation for patients requiring reconditioning are also needed

Cost modelling rehabilitation in the home for reconditioning in the Australian context

Abstract Background Inpatient rehabilitation services are challenged by increasing demand. Where appropriate, a shift in service models towards more community-oriented approaches may improve efficiency. We aimed to estimate the hypothetical cost of delivering a consensus-based rehabilitation in the home (RITH) model as hospital substitution for patients requiring reconditioning following medical illness, surgery or treatment for cancer, compared to the cost of inpatient rehabilitation. Methods Data were drawn from the following sources: the results of a Delphi survey with health professionals working in the field of rehabilitation in Australia; publicly available data and reports; and the expert opinion of the project team. Delphi survey data were analysed descriptively. The costing model was developed using assumptions based on the sources described above and was restricted to the Australian National Subacute and Non-Acute Patient Classification (AN-SNAP) classes 4AR1 to 4AR4, which comprise around 73% of all reconditioning episodes in Australia. RITH cost modelling estimates were compared to the known cost of inpatient rehabilitation. Where weighted averages are provided, these were determined based on the modelled number of inpatient reconditioning episodes per annum that might be substitutable by RITH. Results The cost modelling estimated the weighted average cost of a RITH reconditioning episode (which mirrors an inpatient reconditioning episode in intensity and duration) for AN-SNAP classes 4AR1 to 4AR4, to be A$11,371, which is 28.1$15,820). This represents hypothetical savings of A$4,449 per RITH reconditioning substituted episode of care. Conclusions The hypothetical cost of a model of RITH which would provide patients with as comprehensive a rehabilitation service as received in inpatient rehabilitation, has been determined. Findings suggest potential cost savings to the public hospital sector. Future research should focus on trials which compare actual clinical and cost outcomes of RITH for patients in the reconditioning impairment category, to inpatient rehabilitation