P Kennedy1, Z J Chessell. 1. Oxford Institute of Clinical Psychology Training, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. paul.kennedy@hmc.ox.ac.uk
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case review. OBJECTIVES: To compare the rehabilitation outcomes between patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries and patients with non-traumatic spinal cord injuries, using The Needs Assessment Checklist (NAC), to observe if both the groups benefit from the same rehabilitation programme. SETTING: Tertiary care, spinal cord injury rehabilitation unit (National Spinal Injuries Centre), Stoke Mandeville Hospital, UK. METHODS: Information obtained with the NAC at two time points during patients' rehabilitation was examined. Statistical analysis investigated the rehabilitation outcomes both between and within groups. RESULTS: Initial differences were observed on admission between patients with traumatic and non-traumatic spinal cord injuries in five of the ten rehabilitation domains measured, with patients with non-traumatic injuries presenting with better outcomes. At a later stage in patients' rehabilitation, however, differences between the groups had lessened. Furthermore, the results demonstrated that the whole cohort made significant improvements in all the ten rehabilitation domains, with the same finding evident for both patients with traumatic and patients with non-traumatic spinal cord injuries. CONCLUSION: Patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries and patients with non-traumatic spinal cord injuries benefitted from the same rehabilitation programme in a spinal injury centre, making significant improvements in all ten rehabilitation domains measured, suggesting that it is effective to admit and rehabilitate patients with injuries resulting from both traumatic and non-traumatic aetiologies in the same specialised setting.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case review. OBJECTIVES: To compare the rehabilitation outcomes between patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries and patients with non-traumatic spinal cord injuries, using The Needs Assessment Checklist (NAC), to observe if both the groups benefit from the same rehabilitation programme. SETTING: Tertiary care, spinal cord injury rehabilitation unit (National Spinal Injuries Centre), Stoke Mandeville Hospital, UK. METHODS: Information obtained with the NAC at two time points during patients' rehabilitation was examined. Statistical analysis investigated the rehabilitation outcomes both between and within groups. RESULTS: Initial differences were observed on admission between patients with traumatic and non-traumatic spinal cord injuries in five of the ten rehabilitation domains measured, with patients with non-traumatic injuries presenting with better outcomes. At a later stage in patients' rehabilitation, however, differences between the groups had lessened. Furthermore, the results demonstrated that the whole cohort made significant improvements in all the ten rehabilitation domains, with the same finding evident for both patients with traumatic and patients with non-traumatic spinal cord injuries. CONCLUSION:Patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries and patients with non-traumatic spinal cord injuries benefitted from the same rehabilitation programme in a spinal injury centre, making significant improvements in all ten rehabilitation domains measured, suggesting that it is effective to admit and rehabilitate patients with injuries resulting from both traumatic and non-traumatic aetiologies in the same specialised setting.
Authors: Marie Hidle Gedde; Hanne Sether Lilleberg; Jörg Aßmus; Nils Erik Gilhus; Tiina Rekand Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2019-04-03 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Scott D McDonald; Melody N Mickens; Lisa D Goldberg-Looney; Brian J Mutchler; Michael S Ellwood; Teodoro A Castillo Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2017-03-13 Impact factor: 1.985