Determining level of care appropriateness in the patient journey from acute care to rehabilitation

Background: The selection of patients for rehabilitation, and the timing of transfer from acute care, are important clinical decisions that impact on care quality and patient flow. This paper reports utilization review data on inpatients in acute care with stroke, hip fracture or elective joint replacement, and other inpatients referred for rehabilitation. It examines reasons why acute level of care criteria are not met and explores differences in decision making between acute care and rehabilitation teams around patient appropriateness and readiness for transfer. Methods: Cohort study of patients in a large acute referral hospital in Australia followed with the InterQual utilization review tool, modified to also include reasons why utilization criteria are not met. Additional data on team decision making about appropriateness for rehabilitation, and readiness for transfer, were collected on a subset of patients. Results: There were 696 episodes of care (7189 bed days). Days meeting acute level of care criteria were 56% (stroke, hip fracture and joint replacement patients) and 33% (other patients, from the time of referral). Most inappropriate days in acute care were due to delays in processes/scheduling (45%) or being more appropriate for rehabilitation or lower level of care (30%). On the subset of patients, the acute care team and the utilization review tool deemed patients ready for rehabilitation transfer earlier than the rehabilitation team (means of 1.4, 1.3 and 4.0 days from the date of referral, respectively). From when deemed medically stable for transfer by the acute care team, 28% of patients became unstable. From when deemed stable by the rehabilitation team or utilization review, 9% and 11%, respectively, became unstable. Conclusions: A high proportion of patient days did not meet acute level of care criteria, due predominantly to inefficiencies in care processes, or to patients being more appropriate for an alternative level of care, including rehabilitation. The rehabilitation team was the most accurate in determining ongoing medical stability, but at the cost of a longer acute stay. To avoid inpatients remaining in acute care in a state of \u27terra nullius\u27, clinical models which provide rehabilitation within acute care, and more efficient movement to a rehabilitation setting, is required. Utilization review could have a decision support role in the determination of medical stability

Neuropathic pain: recognition and diagnosis

Despite the complex pathophysiology of neuropathic pain, diagnosis is usually straightforward, relying on negative and positive symptoms and signs in the presence of a condition that can damage the somatosensory system

Thermal sweating following spinal cord injury

A complete spinal cord injury prevents neural connections between distal sites and higher neural structures. While it has previously been demonstrated that an isolated spinal cord can elicit non-thermal sweating independently of the hypothalamus [1-3], the ability of the spinal cord to control sweating in response to thermal stimuli, without hypothalamic influence, is less clear. The majority of early literature indicates that thermal sweating is absent below a complete spinal cord injury (SCI) [4-7], yet several studies suggest otherwise [8-11]. However, invasive measures have failed to observe altered sympathetic activity when thermally stimulating insensate regions [12], which is inconsistent with the observations of sweating below a SCI

Determining level of care appropriateness in the patient journey from acute care to rehabilitation

Abstract Background The selection of patients for rehabilitation, and the timing of transfer from acute care, are important clinical decisions that impact on care quality and patient flow. This paper reports utilization review data on inpatients in acute care with stroke, hip fracture or elective joint replacement, and other inpatients referred for rehabilitation. It examines reasons why acute level of care criteria are not met and explores differences in decision making between acute care and rehabilitation teams around patient appropriateness and readiness for transfer. Methods Cohort study of patients in a large acute referral hospital in Australia followed with the InterQual utilization review tool, modified to also include reasons why utilization criteria are not met. Additional data on team decision making about appropriateness for rehabilitation, and readiness for transfer, were collected on a subset of patients. Results There were 696 episodes of care (7189 bed days). Days meeting acute level of care criteria were 56% (stroke, hip fracture and joint replacement patients) and 33% (other patients, from the time of referral). Most inappropriate days in acute care were due to delays in processes/scheduling (45%) or being more appropriate for rehabilitation or lower level of care (30%). On the subset of patients, the acute care team and the utilization review tool deemed patients ready for rehabilitation transfer earlier than the rehabilitation team (means of 1.4, 1.3 and 4.0 days from the date of referral, respectively). From when deemed medically stable for transfer by the acute care team, 28% of patients became unstable. From when deemed stable by the rehabilitation team or utilization review, 9% and 11%, respectively, became unstable. Conclusions A high proportion of patient days did not meet acute level of care criteria, due predominantly to inefficiencies in care processes, or to patients being more appropriate for an alternative level of care, including rehabilitation. The rehabilitation team was the most accurate in determining ongoing medical stability, but at the cost of a longer acute stay. To avoid inpatients remaining in acute care in a state of 'terra nullius', clinical models which provide rehabilitation within acute care, and more efficient movement to a rehabilitation setting, is required. Utilization review could have a decision support role in the determination of medical stability.</p

Comparing pregabalin and gabapentin for persistent neuropathic pain : A protocol for a pilot N-of-1 trial series

Background: Evidence-based management of neuropathic pain is commonly ineffective due to the large variability in response between cases. Patients often have to trial several drugs before finding one that provides adequate relief, leading to increased costs and worsened outcomes. There is thus a need for tools to guide and streamline prescribing decisions in neuropathic pain. N-of-1 trials provide a potentially precise and economical method of selecting between multiple interventions in an individual patient, and merit a feasibility assessment for use in clinical pain practice. Aims: We aim to evaluate the feasibility of N-of-1 trials to compare pregabalin and gabapentin for individual presentations of neuropathic pain. Methods: This is a double-blinded multiple crossover study, with recruitment from existing patients at an outpatient pain clinic in New South Wales, Australia. Participants will undergo three 4-week treatment pairs, comprising 2 weeks of pregabalin (150–600 mg/day) and 2 weeks of gabapentin (900–3600 mg/day), in an individually randomised order. Intervention doses will be derived from participants’ existing treatment dose. Medications will be taken orally three times daily. The primary outcome will be pain intensity; measures will be self-reported daily in patient diaries. After completing all three cycles, participants and their physicians will be presented with the results of the trial to form an informed decision about their treatment. Discussion: As a stable yet debilitating condition, neuropathic pain is especially amenable to an N-of-1 study design. A successful trial would represent a significant quality of life improvement for the patient, possibly extending over the course of their lifetime.</p