Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33685858›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2021

Targeted rehabilitation may improve patient flow and outcomes: development and implementation of a novel Proactive Rehabilitation Screening (PReS) service.

Jane Wu, Olivia Misa, Christine T Shiner, Steven G Faux

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Musculoskeletal trauma rehabilitation: a global comparison.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2025
    Article
  2. Observational
  3. Rehabilitation systems: trauma centers Asia-Pacific (Australia and Japan).OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jane WuSt Vincent's Health Australia Ltd, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia jane.wu@svha.org.au.
Olivia MisaSt Vincent's Health Australia Ltd, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia.
Christine T ShinerSt Vincent's Health Australia Ltd, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia.
Steven G FauxSt Vincent's Health Australia Ltd, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia.
St Vincent's Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rehabilitation programmes can be delivered to patients receiving acute care ('in-reach rehabilitation') and/or those who have completed acute care but experience ongoing functional impairments ('subacute rehabilitation'). Access to these programmes depends on a rehabilitation assessment, but there are concerns that referrals for this assessment are often triggered too late in the acute care journey. We describe a Proactive Rehabilitation Screening (PReS) process designed to systematically screen patients during an acute hospital admission, and identify early those who are likely to require specialist rehabilitation assessment and intervention. The process is based on review of patient medical records on day 5 after acute hospital admission, or day 3 after transfer from intensive care to an acute hospital ward. Screening involves brief review of documented care needs, pre-existing and new functional disabilities, the need for allied health interventions and non-medical factors delaying discharge. From May 2017 to February 2019, the novel screening process was implemented as part of a service redesign of the rehabilitation consultation service. Four thousand consecutive screens were performed at the study site. Of those 'ruled in' by screening as needing a rehabilitation assessment, 86.0% went on to receive inpatient rehabilitation interventions. Of those 'ruled out' by screening, 92.1% did not go on to receive a rehabilitation intervention, while 7.9% did receive some form of rehabilitation intervention. Of all patients accepted into a rehabilitation programme (n=516), PReS was able to identify 53.6% (n=282) of them before the acute care teams made a referral (based on traditional criteria). In conclusion, we have designed and implemented a systematic, PReS service in one metropolitan Australian hospital. The process described was found to be time efficient and feasible to implement in an acute hospital setting. Further, it appeared to identify the majority of patients who went on to receive formal inpatient rehabilitation interventions.

Indexed as

HospitalizationPatient DischargeAustraliaCritical CareHumansReferral and Consultationprocess mappingquality improvementrehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID33685858
PMCPMC7942267
OpenAlexW3133839498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.