Comparison of two Dutch follow-up care models for spinal cord-injured patients and their impact on health problems,re-admissions and quality of care

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate whether transmural care for people with spinal cord injury living in the community has more impact on health outcomes than traditional follow-up care within the Netherlands.

Design: Quasi-experiment with 12 months of follow-up.

Setting: Eight Dutch rehabilitation centres.

Subjects: Thirty-one patients who received transmural care in two `experimental' rehabilitation centres were compared with a matched sample of 31 patients having received `usual follow-up care' in six other rehabilitation centres.

Intervention: The core component of the transmural care consists of a transmural nurse, who `liaises' between former patients living in the community, primary care professionals and the rehabilitation team. The transmural care model provides activities to support patients and their family/partners and activities to promote continuity of care.

Main measures: The prevalence of pressure sores and urinary tract infections; the number and duration of re-admissions to hospital and rehabilitation centre due to pressure sores, bladder and bowel problems; and the experienced quality of follow-up care.

Results: The transmural care, as implemented, did not influence the health outcomes. The prevalence of pressure sores, urinary tract infections and the number of re-admissions (due to pressure sores, bladder and bowel problems) was respectively 13, 13 and 4 in the intervention group versus 14, 15 and 6 in the usual follow-up care group. Since the transmural care had been incompletely implemented and there were methodological and practical limitations, we formulated no final conclusions regarding its effectiveness.

Conclusion: Implementing the transmural care model strictly according to protocol may improve its effectiveness.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bloemen-Vrencken Jha , Post Mwm , Hendriks J. , De Reus Ece , de Witte LP Health problems of persons with spinal cord injury living in the Netherlands. Disabil Rehabil 2005; 27: 1381—89.

van Asbeck Fwa , Post Mwm , Pangalila RF An epidemiological description of spinal cord injuries in The Netherlands in 1994. Spinal Cord 2000; 38: 420—24.

Anson CA , Shepherd C. Incidence of secondary complications in spinal cord injury. Int J Rehabil Res 1996; 19: 55—66.

Cox RJ , Amsters DI , Pershouse KJ The need for a multidisciplinary outreach service for people with spinal cord injury living in the community. Clin Rehabil 2001; 15: 600—606.

Ernst JL , Thomas LM , Hahnstadt WA , Piskule AA The self-identified long-term care needs of persons with spinal cord injury . SCI Psychosocial Process 1998; 1: 127—132.

Glidden MM Spinal cord injury and case management. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil 1999; 4: 16—23.

Mattson J. Case management: a historical and future perspective of its influence on outcome for persons who have sustained spinal cord injury. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil 1999; 4: 30—37.

Rawl SM , Easton KL , Kwiatkowski S. , Zemen D. , Burczyk B. Effectiveness of a nurse-managed follow-up program for rehabilitation patients after discharge. Rehabil Nurs 1998 ; 23: 204—209.

Rosendal H. Comparative cohort studies in transmural care. Thesis, Utrecht University, 2002.

10.

Temmink D. , Francke AL , Kerkstra A. , AbuSaad HH. Dutch transmural nurse clinics for chronic patients: a descriptive study. Patient Educ Couns 2000 ; 39: 177—84.

11.

Kodner DL Following the logic of long-term care: toward an independent, but integrated sector. Int J Integr Care 2004; 4: e08.

12.

Kodner DL , Spreeuwenberg C. Integrated care: meaning, logic, applications, and implications — a discussion paper. Int J Integr Care 2002 ; 2: e12.

13.

Gröne O. , Garcia-Barbero M. Integrated care. A position paper of the WHO European office for integrated care services. Int J Integr Care 2001; 1: e21.

14.

De Groot S. , Dallmeijer AJ , Post Mwm et al. Demographics of the Dutch multi-centre prospective cohort study `Restoration of mobility in spinal cord injury rehabilitation '. Spinal Cord 2006; 44: 668—75.

15.

Marino RJ ed. Reference manual for the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury. American Spinal Injury Association , 2000.

16.

Bloemen-Vrencken Jha , de Witte LP , Engels JPGM, Post MWM, Van den Heuvel WJA. Transmural care in the rehabilitation sector: implementation experiences with a transmural care model for people with spinal cord injury . Int J Integr Care 2005; 5: e02.

17.

Cardenas DD , Hoffman JM , Kirshblum S. et al. Etiology and incidence of rehospitalization after traumatic spinal cord injury: a multicenter analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85: 1757—63.

18.

Dryden DM , Saunders LD , Rowe BH et al. Utilization of health services following spinal cord injury: a 6-year follow-up study. Spinal Cord 2004; 42: 513—25.

19.

Middleton JW , Lim K. , Taylor L. , Soden R. , Rutkowski S. Patterns of morbidity and rehospitalisation following spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2004; 42: 359—67.

20.

Dunderdale K. , Thompson DR , Miles JN , Beer SF , Furze G. Quality-of-life measurement in chronic heart failure: do we take account of the patient perspective? . Eur J Heart Fail 2005; 7: 572—82.

21.

Johansson P. , Oleni M. , Fridlund B. Patient satisfaction with nursing care in the context of health care: a literature study. Scand J Caring Sci 2002; 16: 337—44.

22.

Wessels R. Ask the user. User perspective in the assessment of assistive technology. Thesis, Maastricht University, 2004.

23.

Whiteneck GG The 44th annual John Stanley Coulter Lecture. Measuring what matters: key rehabilitation outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 75: 1073—76.

24.

Bloemen-Vrencken Jha , de Witte LP , Post Mwm. Follow-up care for persons with spinal cord injury living in the community: a systematic review of interventions and their evaluation. Spinal Cord 2005; 43: 462—75.

25.

Dunn M. , Love L. , Ravesloot C. Subjective health in spinal cord injury after outpatient healthcare follow-up . Spinal Cord 2000; 38: 84—91.

26.

Levi R. , Hultling C. , Seiger A. The Stockholm Spinal Cord Injury Study. 3. Health-related issues of the Swedish annual level-of-living survey in spinal cord injury subjects and controls . Paraplegia 1995; 33: 726—30.

27.

Anson CA , Shepherd C. Incidence of secondary complications in spinal cord injury. Int J Rehabil Res 1996; 19: 55—66.

28.

McKinley WO , Jackson AB , Cardenas DD , DeVivo MJ Long-term medical complications after traumatic spinal cord injury: a regional model systems analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 80: 1402—10.

29.

Noreau L. , Proulx P. , Gagnon L. , Drolet M. , Laramee MT Secondary impairments after spinal cord injury: a population-based study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 79: 526—35.

30.

Schönherr MC Functional outcome after spinal cord injury: activities and participation. Thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 2003.

31.

Grol R. , Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care. Lancet 2003; 362: 1225—30.

32.

Grol R. , Wensing M. , Grimshaw J. What drives change? Barriers to and incentives for achieving evidence-based practice. Med J Aust 2004; 180: S57—60.