Cost-effectiveness of an integrated 'fast track' rehabilitation service for multi-trauma patients involving dedicated early rehabilitation intervention programs: design of a prospective, multi-centre, non-randomised clinical trial

Contains fulltext : 79649.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In conventional multi-trauma care service (CTCS), patients are admitted to hospital via the accident & emergency room. After surgery they are transferred to the IC-unit followed by the general surgery ward. Ensuing treatment takes place in a hospital's outpatient clinic, a rehabilitation centre, a nursing home or the community. Typically, each of the CTCS partners may have its own more or less autonomous treatment perspective. Clinical evidence, however, suggests that an integrated multi-trauma rehabilitation approach ('Supported Fast-track multi-Trauma Rehabilitation Service': SFTRS), featuring: 1) earlier transfer to a specialised trauma rehabilitation unit; 2) earlier start of 'non-weight-bearing' training and multidisciplinary treatment; 3) well-documented treatment protocols; 4) early individual goal-setting; 5) co-ordination of treatment between trauma surgeon and physiatrist, and 6) shorter lengths-of-stay, may be more (cost-)effective.This paper describes the design of a prospective cohort study evaluating the (cost-) effectiveness of SFTRS relative to CTCS. METHODS/DESIGN: The study population includes multi-trauma patients, admitted to one of the participating hospitals, with an Injury Severity Scale score > = 16, complex multiple injuries in several extremities or complex pelvic and/or acetabulum fractures. In a prospective cohort study CTCS and SFTRS will be contrasted. The inclusion period is 19 months. The duration of follow-up is 12 months, with measurements taken at baseline, and at 3,6,9 and 12 months post-injury.Primary outcome measures are 'quality of life' (SF-36) and 'functional health status' (Functional Independence Measure). Secondary outcome measures are the Hospital Anxiety & Depression Scale, the Mini-Mental State Examination as an indicator of cognitive functioning, and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure measuring the extent to which individual ADL treatment goals are met. Costs will be assessed using the PROductivity and DISease Questionnaire and a cost questionnaire. DISCUSSION: The study will yield results on the efficiency of an adapted care service for multi-trauma patients (SFTRS) featuring earlier (and condensed) involvement of specialised rehabilitation treatment. Results will show whether improved SFTRS logistics, combined with shorter stays in hospital and rehabilitation clinic and specialised early rehabilitation training modules are more (cost-) effective, relative to CTCS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials register (ISRCTN68246661) and Netherlands Trial Register (NTR139)

A Review of the Evidence to Support Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation in the Prevention and Management of Venous Disease

INTRODUCTION: The prevention and management of venous disease is a therapeutic challenge. Movement of blood through the venous system is augmented by the action of muscles on the deep veins, and can be achieved through the application of electrical current. The efficacy of currently available clinical devices for this purpose is unknown, and is investigated here. METHODS: A literature search of the EMBASE and Medline databases was performed, and studies were included if they were full text articles, written in english, pertaining to venous disease and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES). RESULTS: NMES devices increase venous haemodynamic parameters such as peak velocity and volume flow. Studies report them to be non-inferior to intermittent pneumatic compression. They are effective in the prevention of venous thromboembolism, though inferior to low molecular weight heparin. NMES can reduce symptoms of chronic venous disease. DISCUSSION: NMES is an important tool in the prevention and management of venous disease, and avoids the significant risks associated with heparin administration. Data explored here is heterogenous in device, protocol, and reported end-points, therefore should be interpreted with care. Long term effects of treatment with NMES have not been explored