Aphasia rehabilitation and the strange neglect of speed.

Timing data is infrequently reported in aphasiological literature and time taken is only a minor factor, where it is considered at all, in existing aphasia assessments. This is not surprising because reaction times are difficult to obtain manually, but it is a pity, because speed data should be indispensable in assessing the severity of language processing disorders and in evaluating the effects of treatment. This paper argues that reporting accuracy data without discussing speed of performance gives an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of any cognitive function. Moreover, in deciding how to treat, when to continue treatment and when to cease therapy, clinicians should have regard to both parameters: Speed and accuracy of performance. Crerar, Ellis and Dean (1996) reported a study in which the written sentence comprehension of 14 long-term agrammatic subjects was assessed and treated using a computer-based microworld. Some statistically significant and durable treatment effects were obtained after a short amount of focused therapy. Only accuracy data were reported in that (already long) paper, and interestingly, although it has been a widely read study, neither referees nor subsequent readers seemed to miss "the other side of the coin": How these participants compared with controls for their speed of processing and what effect treatment had on speed. This paper considers both aspects of the data and presents a tentative way of combining treatment effects on both accuracy and speed of performance in a single indicator. Looking at rehabilitation this way gives us a rather different perspective on which individuals benefited most from the intervention. It also demonstrates that while some subjects are capable of utilising metalinguistic skills to achieve normal accuracy scores even many years post-stroke, there is little prospect of reducing the time taken to within the normal range. Without considering speed of processing, the extent of this residual functional impairment can be overlooked.

A rehabilitation intervention to promote physical recovery following intensive care: a detailed description of construct development, rationale and content together with proposed taxonomy to capture processes in a randomised controlled trial.

Background: increasing numbers of patients are surviving critical illness, but survival may be associated with a constellation of physical and psychological sequelae that can cause on going disability and reduced health-related quality of life. Limited evidence currently exists to guide the optimum structure, timing, and content of rehabilitation programmes. There is a need to both develop and evaluate interventions to support and expedite recovery during the post-ICU discharge period. This paper describes the construct development for a complex rehabilitation intervention intended to promote physical recovery following critical illness. The intervention is currently being evaluated in a randomised trial (ISRCTN09412438; funder Chief Scientists Office, Scotland). Methods: the intervention was developed using the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing complex healthcare interventions. We ensured representation from a wide variety of stakeholders including content experts from multiple specialties, methodologists, and patient representation. The intervention construct was initially based on literature review, local observational and audit work, qualitative studies with ICU survivors, and brainstorming activities. Iterative refinement was aided by the publication of a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline (No. 83), publicly available patient stories (Healthtalkonline), a stakeholder event in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, and local piloting. Modelling and further work involved a feasibility trial and development of a novel generic rehabilitation assistant (GRA) role. Several rounds of external peer review during successive funding applications also contributed to development. Results: the final construct for the complex intervention involved a dedicated GRA trained to pre-defined competencies across multiple rehabilitation domains (physiotherapy, dietetics, occupational therapy, and speech/language therapy), with specific training in post-critical illness issues. The intervention was from ICU discharge to 3 months post-discharge, including inpatient and post-hospital discharge elements. Clear strategies to provide information to patients/families were included. A detailed taxonomy was developed to define and describe the processes undertaken, and capture them during the trial. The detailed process measure description, together with a range of patient, health service, and economic outcomes were successfully mapped on to the modified CONSORT recommendations for reporting non-pharmacologic trial interventions. Conclusions: the MRC complex intervention framework was an effective guide to developing a novel post-ICU rehabilitation intervention. Combining a clearly defined new healthcare role with a detailed taxonomy of process and activity enabled the intervention to be clearly described for the purpose of trial delivery and reporting. These data will be useful when interpreting the results of the randomised trial, will increase internal and external trial validity, and help others implement the intervention if the intervention proves clinically and cost effective.

A randomised controlled trial evaluating a rehabilitation complex intervention for patients following intensive care discharge: the RECOVER study.

Introduction: Patients who survive an intensive care unit admission frequently suffer physical and psychological morbidity for many months after discharge. Current rehabilitation pathways are often fragmented and little is known about the optimum method of promoting recovery. Many patients suffer reduced quality of life. Methods and analysis: The authors plan a multicentre randomised parallel group complex intervention trial with concealment of group allocation from outcome assessors. Patients who required more than 48 h of mechanical ventilation and are deemed fit for intensive care unit discharge will be eligible. Patients with primary neurological diagnoses will be excluded. Participants will be randomised into one of the two groups: the intervention group will receive standard ward-based care delivered by the NHS service with additional treatment by a specifically trained generic rehabilitation assistant during ward stay and via telephone contact after hospital discharge and the control group will receive standard ward-based care delivered by the current NHS service. The intervention group will also receive additional information about their critical illness and access to a critical care physician. The total duration of the intervention will be from randomisation to 3 months postrandomisation. The total duration of follow-up will be 12 months from randomisation for both groups. The primary outcome will be the Rivermead Mobility Index at 3 months. Secondary outcomes will include measures of physical and psychological morbidity and function, quality of life and survival over a 12-month period. A health economic evaluation will also be undertaken. Groups will be compared in relation to primary and secondary outcomes; quantitative analyses will be supplemented by focus groups with patients, carers and healthcare workers. Ethics and dissemination: Consent will be obtained from patients and relatives according to patient capacity. Data will be analysed according to a predefined analysis plan.

Increased hospital-based physical rehabilitation and information provision after intensive care unit discharge: the RECOVER randomized clinical trial.

Importance: critical illness results in disability and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQOL), but the optimum timing and components of rehabilitation are uncertain. Objective: to evaluate the effect of increasing physical and nutritional rehabilitation plus information delivered during the post–intensive care unit (ICU) acute hospital stay by dedicated rehabilitation assistants on subsequent mobility, HRQOL, and prevalent disabilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: a parallel group, randomized clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment at 2 hospitals in Edinburgh, Scotland, of 240 patients discharged from the ICU between December 1, 2010, and January 31, 2013, who required at least 48 hours of mechanical ventilation. Analysis for the primary outcome and other 3-month outcomes was performed between June and August 2013; for the 6- and 12-month outcomes and the health economic evaluation, between March and April 2014. Interventions: during the post-ICU hospital stay, both groups received physiotherapy and dietetic, occupational, and speech/language therapy, but patients in the intervention group received rehabilitation that typically increased the frequency of mobility and exercise therapies 2- to 3-fold, increased dietetic assessment and treatment, used individualized goal setting, and provided greater illness-specific information. Intervention group therapy was coordinated and delivered by a dedicated rehabilitation practitioner. Main Outcomes and Measures: the Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI) (range 0-15) at 3 months; higher scores indicate greater mobility. Secondary outcomes included HRQOL, psychological outcomes, self-reported symptoms, patient experience, and cost-effectiveness during a 12-month follow-up (completed in February 2014). Results: median RMI at randomization was 3 (interquartile range [IQR], 1-6) and at 3 months was 13 (IQR, 10-14) for the intervention and usual care groups (mean difference, −0.2 [95% CI, −1.3 to 0.9; P = .71]). The HRQOL scores were unchanged by the intervention (mean difference in the Physical Component Summary score, −0.1 [95% CI, −3.3 to 3.1; P = .96]; and in the Mental Component Summary score, 0.2 [95% CI, −3.4 to 3.8; P = .91]). No differences were found for self-reported symptoms of fatigue, pain, appetite, joint stiffness, or breathlessness. Levels of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress were similar, as were hand grip strength and the timed Up & Go test. No differences were found at the 6- or 12-month follow-up for any outcome measures. However, patients in the intervention group reported greater satisfaction with physiotherapy, nutritional support, coordination of care, and information provision. Conclusions and Relevance: post-ICU hospital-based rehabilitation, including increased physical and nutritional therapy plus information provision, did not improve physical recovery or HRQOL, but improved patient satisfaction with many aspects of recovery.