HOME-BASED REHABILITATION AND ITS IMPACT ON HOSPITAL UTILIZATION

There is compelling evidence for the effectiveness of home-based occupational therapy and physiotherapy rehabilitation for community dwelling elderly who may struggle with basic activities and the functions of daily living and mobility. Nonetheless, an estimated 2% of home care’s elderly clients receive these therapies. Ontario’s home care data indicates that 78% of clients that could benefit from these specific therapies are not receiving them. The study examined a subset of elderly clients receiving home care following a hospital discharge during 2009-2010. The aim of this study was to: understand the difference between those home care clients who received occupational therapy or physiotherapy and those who did not; and determine if receiving these therapies impacted the utilization of hospital emergency departments and inpatient admissions. A retrospective cohort design and multivariate and survival analysis of hospital and home care administrative data structured the study. Results suggest that home-based rehabilitation is offered to a minority of the home care population. Distinct client characteristics and process variables significantly associated with the increased likelihood of receiving home-based occupational and physical therapies included: clients who were older, females, admitted to home care from hospital inpatient units, assessed as non-acute for clinical and service needs and required more home making support and assistance with activities of daily living. Almost one quarter of the total sample returned to hospital. Visits to emergency departments accounted for the greater part of hospital utilization and primarily for sub-acute general symptoms and signs, post-procedural complications, infections or acute episodes from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and renal failure. Slightly over half of the clients returning to hospital did not receive home-based rehabilitation. Clients who received occupational therapy returned to the hospital sooner following their home care admission whereas clients receiving physiotherapy spent the longest time before rehospitalizing. The majority of the clients receiving occupational therapy were admitted to home care having just resolved sub-acute conditions or symptoms, many of which are known to influence functional and physical decline. Moreover, analysis of process variables indicated that the wait time for a referral to occupational therapy was two times longer compared to physiotherapy. These same clients also waited, on average, over one month before an occupational therapist’s first visit. The need to discriminate who receives home-based rehabilitation is essential to understanding how specific therapies contribute to improving systems outcomes. This study is the first examination that focuses specifically on home-based occupational therapy and physiotherapy rehabilitation and the client characteristics and process variables associated with receiving/not receiving these therapies and the impact these factors have on the time-to-rehospitalization.

AN INVESTIGATION ON ROUTINE FOLLOW-UP CARE FOR HEAD AND NECK CANCER

BACKGROUND: Follow-up care aims to provide surveillance with early detection of recurring cancers and to address treatment complications and other health issues in survivorship. It is assumed that follow-up care fulfills these aims, however little evidence supports routine surveillance detecting curable disease early enough to improve survival. Cancer survivors are a diverse patient population, suggesting that a single follow-up regimen may not meet all patients’ follow-up needs. Little is known about what effective follow-up care should include for head and neck cancer patients in a Canadian setting. Identification of subgroups of patients with specific needs and current practices would allow for hypotheses to be generated for enhancing follow-up care. OBJECTIVES: 1a) To describe the follow-up needs and preferences of head and neck cancer patients, 1b) to identify which patient characteristics predict needs and preferences, 1c) to evaluate how needs and preferences change over time, 2a) to describe follow-up care practices by physician visits and imaging tests, and 2b) to identify factors associated to the delivered follow-up care. METHODS: 1) 175 patients who completed treatment between 2012 and 2013 in Kingston and London, Ontario were recruited to participate in a prospective survey study on patients’ needs and preferences in follow-up care. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were employed to describe patient survey responses and to identify patient characteristics that predicted needs and preferences. 2) A retrospective cohort study of 3975 patients on routine follow-up from 2007 to 2015 was carried out using data linkages across registry and administrative databases to describe follow-up practices in Ontario by visits and tests. Multivariate regression analyses assessed factors related to follow-up care. RESULTS: 1) Patients’ needs and preferences were wide-ranging with several characteristics predicting needs and preferences (ORECOG=2.69 and ORAnxiety=1.13). Needs and preferences declined as patients transitioned into their second year of follow-up (p<0.05). 2) Wide variation in practices was found, with marked differences compared to existing consensus guidelines. Multiple factors were associated with follow-up practices (RRTumor site=0.73 and RRLHIN=1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Patient characteristics can be used to personalize care and guidelines are not informing practice. Future research should evaluate individualized approaches to follow-up care.