Integrated care pathways in multiple sclerosis rehabilitation: completing the audit cycle

Abstract

The rehabilitation of progressive neurological disorders, such as Multiple Sclerosis (MS) requires comprehensive, expert management which is demanding of both time and resources. Mechanisms to monitor and audit both process and outcome are therefore essential. Integrated care pathways (ICPs) which detail the expected interventions during a given episode of clinical care, provide such a mechanism. In this study three cohorts of patients (totalling 125 episodes) with clinically definite progressive MS underwent a rehabilitation programme audited through ICPs. The cohorts were similar in relation to disability and age. Variations (departures from the expected pathway) were documented for both the rehabilitation process and goal achievement. Duration of stay reduced from 28 days for the first cohort to 18 days for the third and there was greater multidisciplinary input and carer involvement over time. Goal achievement increased from 79% for the first cohort to 87% for the third and there was an increased emphasis on cognitive function and fatigue management in relation to goals set. ICPs provide an excellent mechanism for closing the audit loop and have the potential to play an important role in improving service provision in MS.

Keywords

Integrated Care Pathways (ICPs)Multiple Sclerosis (MS)rehabilitation audit

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Sacket D et al. (1996). Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't . BMJ 312: 71-72 .

Freeman JA , Playford ED , Nicholas RS , Thompson AJ. (1996). A neurological rehabilitation unit: audit of activity and outcome . Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London 30: 21-26 .

Kitchiner D , Davidson C , Bundred P. (1996). Integrated care Pathways: effective tools for continuous evaluation of clinical practice . Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2: 65-59 .

Thornton J. (1997). Pathways in community mental health. In S. Johnson (ed.) Pathways of Care. Blackstone Science: Oxford . pp.149-170.

Schut H , Stam H. (1994) Goals in rehabilitation team-work . Disability and Rehabilitation 16: 223-226 .

Rossiter D , Thompson AJ. (1995) Integrated Care Pathways in a neurorehabilitation setting . Disability and Rehabilitation 17: 443-448 .

Rossiter D , Thompson AJ. (1995) Integrated care pathways and their role in the clinical audit of rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis . MS Management 2: 1-17 .

Johnson J , Thompson AJ. (1996) Rehabilitation in a neuroscience centre: the role of expert assessment and selection . British Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation 3: 303-308 .

Lublin F , Reingold C. (1996) Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: results of an international survey . Neurology 46: 907-911 .

10.

Kurtzke JF. (1983) Rating neurological impairment in multiple sclerosis: an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) . Neurology 33: 1444-1452 .

11.

Mahoney FI , Barthel DW. (1965). The Barthel Index . Maryland State Medical Journal 65: 1461-1465 .

12.

Dodds TA , Martin DP , Stolov WC , Deyo RA. (1993) A validation of the functional independence measure and its performance amongst rehabilitation inpatients . Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 74: 531-536 .

13.

Poser CM et al. (1983) New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclersis: guidelines for research protocols . Ann Neurol 13: 227-231 .

14.

Hobart J et al. (1997) Measuring Neurology-Is bigger better? Neurology 48; (Suppl 2): A235-A235 .

15.

Freeman JA , Langdon DW , Hobart JC , Thompson AJ. (1997) The impact of rehabilitation on disability and handicap in progressive multiple sclerosis: a randomised controlled trial . Ann Neurol 42: 236-244 .

16.

Langdon DW , Thompson AJ. (1995) Variables affecting the outcome of neurorehabilitation of patients with multiple sclerosis (abstract) Journal of Neurology 242: (Suppl. 2).