S W Muir-Hunter1, G Lim Fat, R Mackenzie, J Wells, M Montero-Odasso. 1. Dr. Susan Hunter, University of Western Ontario, School of Physical Therapy, Room 1588, Elborn College, London, Ontario, Canada N6G 1H1, Phone: 519-661-2111 ext 88845, Email: susan.hunter@uwo.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the magnitude of functional recovery in older adults with and without dementia admitted to an inpatient geriatric rehabilitation program by measuring change in measures of global physical function and physical therapy treatment outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Rehabilitation academic hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive subjects, with (N=65, age 81.9±6.0 y) and without (N=157, age 82.8±7.2 y) a dementia diagnosis, had assessment data at admission and discharge from inpatient geriatric rehabilitation unit. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MEASUREMENTS: The Functional Independence Measure (FIM) was used to estimate level of independence on activities of daily living. The Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) and 2 Minute Walk Test (2MWT) were used to estimate functional mobility and endurance. The FIM (total, motor subscale, cognitive subscale scores) were used to calculate rehabilitation efficacy and efficiency scores. RESULTS: After controlling for confounding, there was no group difference for gains on the BBS, TUG, 2MWT; there was no group difference on rehabilitation efficacy and efficiency values based on the FIM motor subscale. The magnitude of the rehabilitation gain using the total FIM score was statistically different between groups, people with dementia having smaller gains. CONCLUSION: Older adults with a diagnosis of dementia are capable of making motor function recovery during inpatient sub-acute rehabilitation comparable to their peers without a dementia diagnosis. The metric used to evaluate functional recovery influences the determination of rehabilitation success between groups. Rehabilitation success should be defined among people with a dementia diagnosis by a change in the motor subscale of the FIM, rather than the total FIM score or the gain relative to the maximal FIM score.
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the magnitude of functional recovery in older adults with and without dementia admitted to an inpatient geriatric rehabilitation program by measuring change in measures of global physical function and physical therapy treatment outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Rehabilitation academic hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive subjects, with (N=65, age 81.9±6.0 y) and without (N=157, age 82.8±7.2 y) a dementia diagnosis, had assessment data at admission and discharge from inpatient geriatric rehabilitation unit. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MEASUREMENTS: The Functional Independence Measure (FIM) was used to estimate level of independence on activities of daily living. The Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) and 2 Minute Walk Test (2MWT) were used to estimate functional mobility and endurance. The FIM (total, motor subscale, cognitive subscale scores) were used to calculate rehabilitation efficacy and efficiency scores. RESULTS: After controlling for confounding, there was no group difference for gains on the BBS, TUG, 2MWT; there was no group difference on rehabilitation efficacy and efficiency values based on the FIM motor subscale. The magnitude of the rehabilitation gain using the total FIM score was statistically different between groups, people with dementia having smaller gains. CONCLUSION: Older adults with a diagnosis of dementia are capable of making motor function recovery during inpatient sub-acute rehabilitation comparable to their peers without a dementia diagnosis. The metric used to evaluate functional recovery influences the determination of rehabilitation success between groups. Rehabilitation success should be defined among people with a dementia diagnosis by a change in the motor subscale of the FIM, rather than the total FIM score or the gain relative to the maximal FIM score.
Authors: Joe Verghese; Jeannette Mahoney; Anne F Ambrose; Cuiling Wang; Roee Holtzer Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2010-07-19 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Lisa Sweet; Mike Van Adel; Valerie Metcalf; Lisa Wright; Anne Harley; René Leiva; Vanessa Taler Journal: Int Psychogeriatr Date: 2011-08-01 Impact factor: 3.878
Authors: Marianne Beninato; Kathleen M Gill-Body; Sara Salles; Paul C Stark; Randie M Black-Schaffer; Joel Stein Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Katherine S McGilton; Aileen M Davis; Gary Naglie; Nizar Mahomed; John Flannery; Susan Jaglal; Cheryl Cott; Steven Stewart Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2013-12-13 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Catherine M Said; Jennifer L McGinley; Cassandra Szoeke; Barbara Workman; Keith D Hill; Joanne E Wittwer; Michael Woodward; Danny Liew; Leonid Churilov; Julie Bernhardt; Meg E Morris Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2021-01-31 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Louise M Allan; Alison Wheatley; Elizabeth Flynn; Amy Smith; Chris Fox; Denise Howel; Robert Barber; Tara Marie Homer; Louise Robinson; Steve Wayne Parry; Lynne Corner; Jim Anthony Connolly; Lynn Rochester; Claire Bamford Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2018-11-10