Additional Saturday rehabilitation improves functional independence and quality of life and reduces length of stay: a randomised controlled trial

Background Many inpatients receive little or no rehabilitation on weekends. Our aim was to determine what effect providing additional Saturday rehabilitation during inpatient rehabilitation had on functional independence, quality of life and length of stay compared to 5 days per week of rehabilitation.MethodsThis was a multicenter, single-blind (assessors) randomized controlled trial with concealed allocation and 12-month follow-up conducted in two publically funded metropolitan inpatient rehabilitation facilities in Melbourne, Australia. Patients were eligible if they were adults (aged &ge;18 years) admitted for rehabilitation for any orthopedic, neurological or other disabling conditions excluding those admitted for slow stream rehabilitation/geriatric evaluation and management. Participants were randomly allocated to usual care Monday to Friday rehabilitation (control) or to Monday to Saturday rehabilitation (intervention). The additional Saturday rehabilitation comprised physiotherapy and occupational therapy. The primary outcomes were functional independence (functional independence measure (FIM); measured on an 18 to 126 point scale), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D utility index; measured on a 0 to 1 scale, and EQ-5D visual analog scale; measured on a 0 to 100 scale), and patient length of stay. Outcome measures were assessed on admission, discharge (primary endpoint), and at 6 and 12 months post discharge.ResultsWe randomly assigned 996 adults (mean (SD) age 74 (13) years) to Monday to Saturday rehabilitation (n&thinsp;=&thinsp;496) or usual care Monday to Friday rehabilitation (n&thinsp;=&thinsp;500). Relative to admission scores, intervention group participants had higher functional independence (mean difference (MD) 2.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.5 to 4.1, P&thinsp;=&thinsp;0.01) and health-related quality of life (MD 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.07, P&thinsp;=&thinsp;0.009) on discharge and may have had a shorter length of stay by 2 days (95% CI 0 to 4, P&thinsp;=&thinsp;0.1) when compared to control group participants. Intervention group participants were 17% more likely to have achieved a clinically significant change in functional independence of 22 FIM points or more (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.34) and 18% more likely to have achieved a clinically significant change in health-related quality of life (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.34) on discharge compared to the control group. There was some maintenance of effect for functional independence and health-related quality of life at 6-month follow-up but not at 12-month follow-up. There was no difference in the number of adverse events between the groups (incidence rate ratio&thinsp;=&thinsp;0.81, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.08).ConclusionsProviding an additional day of rehabilitation improved functional independence and health-related quality of life at discharge and may have reduced length of stay for patients receiving inpatient rehabilitation.&nbsp;</p

Assessing treatment outcomes in multiple sclerosis trials and in the clinical setting

Increasing numbers of drugs are being developed for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). Measurement of relevant outcomes is key for assessing the efficacy of new drugs in clinical trials and for monitoring responses to disease-modifying drugs in individual patients. Most outcomes used in trial and clinical settings reflect either clinical or neuroimaging aspects of MS (such as relapse and accrual of disability or the presence of visible inflammation and brain tissue loss, respectively). However, most measures employed in clinical trials to assess treatment effects are not used in routine practice. In clinical trials, the appropriate choice of outcome measures is crucial because the results determine whether a drug is considered effective and therefore worthy of further development; in the clinic, outcome measures can guide treatment decisions, such as choosing a first-line disease-modifying drug or escalating to second-line treatment. This Review discusses clinical, neuroimaging and composite outcome measures for MS, including patient-reported outcome measures, used in both trials and the clinical setting. Its aim is to help clinicians and researchers navigate through the multiple options encountered when choosing an outcome measure. Barriers and limitations that need to be overcome to translate trial outcome measures into the clinical setting are also discussed