The value of the Rehabilitation Activities Profile (RAP) as a quality sub-system in rehabilitation medicine

被引:14
作者
Beckerman, H
Roelofsen, EE
Knol, DL
Lankhorst, GJ
机构
[1] VU Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Rehabil Med, NL-1007 MB Amsterdam, Netherlands
[2] VU Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Clin Epidemiol & Biostat, NL-1007 MB Amsterdam, Netherlands
[3] VU Univ, Med Ctr, Inst Res Extramural Med, EMGO Inst, NL-1007 MB Amsterdam, Netherlands
来源
DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION | 2004年 / 26卷 / 07期
关键词
D O I
10.1080/09638280410001662941
中图分类号
R49 [康复医学];
学科分类号
100215 ;
摘要
Purpose: To determine whether interdisciplinary team care, using the Rehabilitation Activities Profile ( RAP) as a team tool, results in a better rehabilitation outcome. Method: A multilevel prospective cohort study, with a controlled before and after design. Eighteen rehabilitation teams in eight rehabilitation centres in the Netherlands and Belgium participated. Based on the level of implementation of the RAP, we compared three study groups. Consecutive adult patients (n = 933) with stroke, amputation of the lower limb, spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, or other neuromuscular disorders, were followed during inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation. Main outcome measures were Barthel Index, RAP-CPM ( sum score of the domains communication, personal care and mobility), Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), length of rehabilitation (LOR) and discharge destination ( home vs elsewhere). Results: Overall results show that scores on the Barthel Index, the RAP-CPM and the NHP improved, on average, by 18.4%, 12.7%, and 6.7%, respectively. However, treatment from a rehabilitation team that uses the RAP was associated with a significantly lower Barthel score, and small, non-significant effects on the RAP-CPM and the NHP. Partial use of the RAP resulted in non-significant, lower scores on these measures. With respect to discharge destination and LOR, there were also no significant differences between the three study groups, with the exception of a shorter outpatient rehabilitation period for the group in which partial use was made of the RAP. Conclusion: The RAP, at the current level of implementation, does not improve rehabilitation outcome.
引用
收藏
页码:387 / 400
页数:14
相关论文
共 55 条
[21]  
JELLES F, 1995, J REHABILITATION SCI, V8, P51
[22]   Generic health status measures are unsuitable for measuring health status in severely disabled people [J].
Kersten, P ;
Mullee, MA ;
Smith, JAE ;
McLellan, L ;
George, S .
CLINICAL REHABILITATION, 1999, 13 (03) :219-228
[23]  
Klazinga N, 2001, DISABIL REHABIL, V23, P217, DOI 10.1080/09638280151080702
[24]  
KREFT I, 1998, SERIES ISM INTRO STA
[25]  
LANKHORST GJ, 1995, REHABILITATION ACTIV
[26]   Censoring issues in survival analysis [J].
Leung, KM ;
Elashoff, RM ;
Afifi, AA .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 1997, 18 :83-104
[27]   Process versus outcome indicators in the assessment of quality of health care [J].
Mant, J .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR QUALITY IN HEALTH CARE, 2001, 13 (06) :475-480
[28]  
Moos R.H., 1974, PRELIMINARY MANUAL F
[29]  
MOOS RH, 1981, GROUP ENV SCALE MANU
[30]   The EFQM excellence model: European and Dutch experiences with the EFQM approach in health care [J].
Nabitz, U ;
Klazinga, N ;
Walburg, J .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR QUALITY IN HEALTH CARE, 2000, 12 (03) :191-201