创伤性脑损伤后住院康复的两种过渡模式的比较:一项实用的比较效果试验。

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Jeanne M Hoffman, Taylor Obata, Marcia A Ciol, Andrew Humbert, Jennifer Bogner, John D Corrigan, Kristen Dams-O'Connor, Simon Driver, Rosemary Dubiel, Flora M Hammond, Tessa Hart, Maria Kajankova, Megan Moore, Thomas K Watanabe, John Whyte, Jesse R Fann
{"title":"创伤性脑损伤后住院康复的两种过渡模式的比较:一项实用的比较效果试验。","authors":"Jeanne M Hoffman, Taylor Obata, Marcia A Ciol, Andrew Humbert, Jennifer Bogner, John D Corrigan, Kristen Dams-O'Connor, Simon Driver, Rosemary Dubiel, Flora M Hammond, Tessa Hart, Maria Kajankova, Megan Moore, Thomas K Watanabe, John Whyte, Jesse R Fann","doi":"10.1177/08977151251374298","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (msTBI) results in physical, cognitive, behavioral, and psychosocial difficulties. Those who receive inpatient rehabilitation following a msTBI need assistance after discharge. Patients and their families often struggle to find information, manage symptoms, and identify and access relevant services. Inadequate transition services from hospital-based care to the community can perpetuate and amplify the consequences of msTBI. There is a critical need for enhanced transitional care following hospital discharge. The goal of the current study was to compare two existing models for supporting the transition in the United States: 1. The Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) model focused on transition planning prior to discharge (denominated Rehabilitation Discharge Plan [RDP]) and 2. The Veterans Health Administration model which provides a more intensive approach, extending beyond discharge, to enhance transitional care services (denominated Rehabilitation Transition Plan [RTP]). A six-center, 1:1 randomized pragmatic clinical trial with masked outcome assessment was conducted to compare the effectiveness of these two approaches. All participants received the RDP, including: 1. Patient and family education; 2. Written discharge instructions reviewed with the patient and family prior to discharge; and 3. A brief phone call from an inpatient care provider post discharge to identify any immediate problems. Those randomized to the RTP intervention also received up to 12 scheduled contacts during the 6 months following discharge from a trained care manager to assess needs, provide education, and resource facilitation. The primary outcomes were societal participation (participation assessment with recombined tools-objective) and quality of life (quality of life after brain injury scale) at 6 months post discharge. We hypothesized that patients randomized to RTP would report better participation and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at the end of intervention and at 1-year post discharge compared with patients randomized to RDP. Second, we hypothesized that patients randomized to RTP would experience a steeper trajectory of improvement in participation and HRQoL over 12 months compared to patients randomized to RDP. A total of 925 patients were randomized. The results showed no significant differences between the two interventions on societal participation or HRQoL. Likewise, analysis of trajectory of outcomes did not show treatment group differences, and most patient participants had minimal change across all time points. Preinjury limitations, Medicaid insurance, and lower function contributed to worse outcomes but there was evidence for an interaction with the intervention for clinical sites and whether participants had an enrolled caregiver, which differed by group (increased participation with no enrolled caregiver in RTP, and better HRQoL with a caregiver for RDP). A key limitation of the study was the length of the intervention, with our patient, family, and professional partners reporting that 6 months might be insufficient to address the many needs that arise after msTBI.</p>","PeriodicalId":16512,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurotrauma","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Two Models of Transition from Inpatient Rehabilitation Following Traumatic Brain Injury: A Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Jeanne M Hoffman, Taylor Obata, Marcia A Ciol, Andrew Humbert, Jennifer Bogner, John D Corrigan, Kristen Dams-O'Connor, Simon Driver, Rosemary Dubiel, Flora M Hammond, Tessa Hart, Maria Kajankova, Megan Moore, Thomas K Watanabe, John Whyte, Jesse R Fann\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08977151251374298\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (msTBI) results in physical, cognitive, behavioral, and psychosocial difficulties. Those who receive inpatient rehabilitation following a msTBI need assistance after discharge. Patients and their families often struggle to find information, manage symptoms, and identify and access relevant services. Inadequate transition services from hospital-based care to the community can perpetuate and amplify the consequences of msTBI. There is a critical need for enhanced transitional care following hospital discharge. The goal of the current study was to compare two existing models for supporting the transition in the United States: 1. The Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) model focused on transition planning prior to discharge (denominated Rehabilitation Discharge Plan [RDP]) and 2. The Veterans Health Administration model which provides a more intensive approach, extending beyond discharge, to enhance transitional care services (denominated Rehabilitation Transition Plan [RTP]). A six-center, 1:1 randomized pragmatic clinical trial with masked outcome assessment was conducted to compare the effectiveness of these two approaches. All participants received the RDP, including: 1. Patient and family education; 2. Written discharge instructions reviewed with the patient and family prior to discharge; and 3. A brief phone call from an inpatient care provider post discharge to identify any immediate problems. Those randomized to the RTP intervention also received up to 12 scheduled contacts during the 6 months following discharge from a trained care manager to assess needs, provide education, and resource facilitation. The primary outcomes were societal participation (participation assessment with recombined tools-objective) and quality of life (quality of life after brain injury scale) at 6 months post discharge. We hypothesized that patients randomized to RTP would report better participation and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at the end of intervention and at 1-year post discharge compared with patients randomized to RDP. Second, we hypothesized that patients randomized to RTP would experience a steeper trajectory of improvement in participation and HRQoL over 12 months compared to patients randomized to RDP. A total of 925 patients were randomized. The results showed no significant differences between the two interventions on societal participation or HRQoL. Likewise, analysis of trajectory of outcomes did not show treatment group differences, and most patient participants had minimal change across all time points. Preinjury limitations, Medicaid insurance, and lower function contributed to worse outcomes but there was evidence for an interaction with the intervention for clinical sites and whether participants had an enrolled caregiver, which differed by group (increased participation with no enrolled caregiver in RTP, and better HRQoL with a caregiver for RDP). A key limitation of the study was the length of the intervention, with our patient, family, and professional partners reporting that 6 months might be insufficient to address the many needs that arise after msTBI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16512,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of neurotrauma\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of neurotrauma\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08977151251374298\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurotrauma","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08977151251374298","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

中度至重度创伤性脑损伤(msTBI)导致身体、认知、行为和社会心理困难。那些在msTBI后接受住院康复治疗的患者在出院后需要帮助。患者及其家属往往难以找到信息、管理症状、识别和获得相关服务。从以医院为基础的护理到社区的过渡服务不足,可能会延续和扩大msTBI的后果。迫切需要加强出院后的过渡性护理。本研究的目的是比较支持美国转型的两种现有模式:1。康复设施认证委员会(CARF)模式侧重于出院前的过渡规划(称为康复出院计划[RDP])。退伍军人健康管理局模式提供了一种更密集的方法,延伸到出院之外,以加强过渡护理服务(称为康复过渡计划[RTP])。我们进行了一项六中心、1:1随机实用临床试验,对两种方法的疗效进行了比较。所有参与者都收到了RDP,包括:1。患者和家庭教育;2. 出院前与患者及家属审阅书面出院说明;和3。一个简短的电话从住院护理提供者出院后,以确定任何紧迫的问题。那些随机分配到RTP干预组的患者在出院后的6个月内也接受了多达12次的预约接触,由训练有素的护理经理评估需求,提供教育和资源便利。主要结果是出院后6个月的社会参与(使用重组工具-目标的参与评估)和生活质量(脑损伤后生活质量量表)。我们假设随机分配到RTP的患者在干预结束时和出院后1年的参与度和健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)比随机分配到RDP的患者更好。其次,我们假设随机分配到RTP的患者在12个月内的参与和HRQoL的改善轨迹比随机分配到RDP的患者更陡峭。共有925名患者被随机分组。结果显示,两种干预措施在社会参与或HRQoL方面无显著差异。同样,对结果轨迹的分析也没有显示出治疗组的差异,大多数患者在所有时间点上都有最小的变化。损伤前限制、医疗补助保险和较低的功能导致较差的结果,但有证据表明,临床地点的干预和参与者是否有登记的护理人员之间存在相互作用,这在组间存在差异(没有登记的护理人员参与RTP的人数增加,RDP有护理人员的HRQoL更好)。该研究的一个关键限制是干预的时间,我们的患者、家属和专业合作伙伴报告说,6个月可能不足以解决msTBI后出现的许多需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing Two Models of Transition from Inpatient Rehabilitation Following Traumatic Brain Injury: A Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

Moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (msTBI) results in physical, cognitive, behavioral, and psychosocial difficulties. Those who receive inpatient rehabilitation following a msTBI need assistance after discharge. Patients and their families often struggle to find information, manage symptoms, and identify and access relevant services. Inadequate transition services from hospital-based care to the community can perpetuate and amplify the consequences of msTBI. There is a critical need for enhanced transitional care following hospital discharge. The goal of the current study was to compare two existing models for supporting the transition in the United States: 1. The Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) model focused on transition planning prior to discharge (denominated Rehabilitation Discharge Plan [RDP]) and 2. The Veterans Health Administration model which provides a more intensive approach, extending beyond discharge, to enhance transitional care services (denominated Rehabilitation Transition Plan [RTP]). A six-center, 1:1 randomized pragmatic clinical trial with masked outcome assessment was conducted to compare the effectiveness of these two approaches. All participants received the RDP, including: 1. Patient and family education; 2. Written discharge instructions reviewed with the patient and family prior to discharge; and 3. A brief phone call from an inpatient care provider post discharge to identify any immediate problems. Those randomized to the RTP intervention also received up to 12 scheduled contacts during the 6 months following discharge from a trained care manager to assess needs, provide education, and resource facilitation. The primary outcomes were societal participation (participation assessment with recombined tools-objective) and quality of life (quality of life after brain injury scale) at 6 months post discharge. We hypothesized that patients randomized to RTP would report better participation and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at the end of intervention and at 1-year post discharge compared with patients randomized to RDP. Second, we hypothesized that patients randomized to RTP would experience a steeper trajectory of improvement in participation and HRQoL over 12 months compared to patients randomized to RDP. A total of 925 patients were randomized. The results showed no significant differences between the two interventions on societal participation or HRQoL. Likewise, analysis of trajectory of outcomes did not show treatment group differences, and most patient participants had minimal change across all time points. Preinjury limitations, Medicaid insurance, and lower function contributed to worse outcomes but there was evidence for an interaction with the intervention for clinical sites and whether participants had an enrolled caregiver, which differed by group (increased participation with no enrolled caregiver in RTP, and better HRQoL with a caregiver for RDP). A key limitation of the study was the length of the intervention, with our patient, family, and professional partners reporting that 6 months might be insufficient to address the many needs that arise after msTBI.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of neurotrauma
Journal of neurotrauma 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
7.10%
发文量
233
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Neurotrauma is the flagship, peer-reviewed publication for reporting on the latest advances in both the clinical and laboratory investigation of traumatic brain and spinal cord injury. The Journal focuses on the basic pathobiology of injury to the central nervous system, while considering preclinical and clinical trials targeted at improving both the early management and long-term care and recovery of traumatically injured patients. This is the essential journal publishing cutting-edge basic and translational research in traumatically injured human and animal studies, with emphasis on neurodegenerative disease research linked to CNS trauma.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信