Cargando…

Impact of a non-return-to-work prognostic model (WORRK) on allocation to rehabilitation clinical pathways: A single centre parallel group randomised trial

INTRODUCTION: Stratified medicine might allow improvement of patient outcomes while keeping costs stable or even diminishing them. Our objective was to measure if a prediction model, developed to predict non-return to work (nRTW) after orthopaedic trauma, improves the allocation to various vocationa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Plomb-Holmes, Chantal, Hilfiker, Roger, Leger, Bertrand, Luthi, François
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6072039/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30071081
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201687
_version_ 1783343959731339264
author Plomb-Holmes, Chantal
Hilfiker, Roger
Leger, Bertrand
Luthi, François
author_facet Plomb-Holmes, Chantal
Hilfiker, Roger
Leger, Bertrand
Luthi, François
author_sort Plomb-Holmes, Chantal
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Stratified medicine might allow improvement of patient outcomes while keeping costs stable or even diminishing them. Our objective was to measure if a prediction model, developed to predict non-return to work (nRTW) after orthopaedic trauma, improves the allocation to various vocational pathways for use in clinical practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomised-controlled trial on vocational inpatients after orthopaedic trauma (n = 280). In the intervention group, nRTW risk (estimated using the WORRK tool) was given to the clinician team before allocation of vocational pathways, while in the control group it was not. Three pathways were available: simple, coaching and evaluation (EP). Accompanying indications for interpretation of the nRTW risk were given. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients allocated to the EP. The secondary outcome was patients’ and clinicians’ satisfaction. RESULTS: 450 patients were assessed for eligibility, 280 included, 139 randomized to the control group (mean age 42.3years) and 141 to the intervention group (43.2years). The two groups had a similar risk profile. The patients in the intervention group were more often referred to the EP compared to the control group, but not statistically significantly more (risk ratio 1.31 [95% CI 0.70–2.46]). The number needed to treat was 30. When considering patients transferred to different pathways during rehabilitation, more patients from the intervention group were transferred to the EP over the course of the rehabilitation, increasing the risk ratio to 1.57 [95% CI 0.89 to 2.74]. DISCUSSION: The knowledge of the risk of nRTW has an influence, that is not however statistically significant and is without clinical importance as previously defined by our own power calculations (based on a 15% increase in referral to EP in the intervention group compared to the control group), on clinical decision making with regards to the allocation of patients to different physical and vocational rehabilitation programs after orthopaedic trauma. This influence is less than what was expected, possibly due to insufficient directive guidelines accompanying the WORRK model, or because clinicians associate less hours of therapy (as with certain rehabilitation programs) to disadvantaging the patient. These findings do, however, support the multi-factorial aspect of clinician decision-making.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6072039
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60720392018-08-16 Impact of a non-return-to-work prognostic model (WORRK) on allocation to rehabilitation clinical pathways: A single centre parallel group randomised trial Plomb-Holmes, Chantal Hilfiker, Roger Leger, Bertrand Luthi, François PLoS One Research Article INTRODUCTION: Stratified medicine might allow improvement of patient outcomes while keeping costs stable or even diminishing them. Our objective was to measure if a prediction model, developed to predict non-return to work (nRTW) after orthopaedic trauma, improves the allocation to various vocational pathways for use in clinical practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomised-controlled trial on vocational inpatients after orthopaedic trauma (n = 280). In the intervention group, nRTW risk (estimated using the WORRK tool) was given to the clinician team before allocation of vocational pathways, while in the control group it was not. Three pathways were available: simple, coaching and evaluation (EP). Accompanying indications for interpretation of the nRTW risk were given. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients allocated to the EP. The secondary outcome was patients’ and clinicians’ satisfaction. RESULTS: 450 patients were assessed for eligibility, 280 included, 139 randomized to the control group (mean age 42.3years) and 141 to the intervention group (43.2years). The two groups had a similar risk profile. The patients in the intervention group were more often referred to the EP compared to the control group, but not statistically significantly more (risk ratio 1.31 [95% CI 0.70–2.46]). The number needed to treat was 30. When considering patients transferred to different pathways during rehabilitation, more patients from the intervention group were transferred to the EP over the course of the rehabilitation, increasing the risk ratio to 1.57 [95% CI 0.89 to 2.74]. DISCUSSION: The knowledge of the risk of nRTW has an influence, that is not however statistically significant and is without clinical importance as previously defined by our own power calculations (based on a 15% increase in referral to EP in the intervention group compared to the control group), on clinical decision making with regards to the allocation of patients to different physical and vocational rehabilitation programs after orthopaedic trauma. This influence is less than what was expected, possibly due to insufficient directive guidelines accompanying the WORRK model, or because clinicians associate less hours of therapy (as with certain rehabilitation programs) to disadvantaging the patient. These findings do, however, support the multi-factorial aspect of clinician decision-making. Public Library of Science 2018-08-02 /pmc/articles/PMC6072039/ /pubmed/30071081 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201687 Text en © 2018 Plomb-Holmes et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Plomb-Holmes, Chantal
Hilfiker, Roger
Leger, Bertrand
Luthi, François
Impact of a non-return-to-work prognostic model (WORRK) on allocation to rehabilitation clinical pathways: A single centre parallel group randomised trial
title Impact of a non-return-to-work prognostic model (WORRK) on allocation to rehabilitation clinical pathways: A single centre parallel group randomised trial
title_full Impact of a non-return-to-work prognostic model (WORRK) on allocation to rehabilitation clinical pathways: A single centre parallel group randomised trial
title_fullStr Impact of a non-return-to-work prognostic model (WORRK) on allocation to rehabilitation clinical pathways: A single centre parallel group randomised trial
title_full_unstemmed Impact of a non-return-to-work prognostic model (WORRK) on allocation to rehabilitation clinical pathways: A single centre parallel group randomised trial
title_short Impact of a non-return-to-work prognostic model (WORRK) on allocation to rehabilitation clinical pathways: A single centre parallel group randomised trial
title_sort impact of a non-return-to-work prognostic model (worrk) on allocation to rehabilitation clinical pathways: a single centre parallel group randomised trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6072039/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30071081
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201687
work_keys_str_mv AT plombholmeschantal impactofanonreturntoworkprognosticmodelworrkonallocationtorehabilitationclinicalpathwaysasinglecentreparallelgrouprandomisedtrial
AT hilfikerroger impactofanonreturntoworkprognosticmodelworrkonallocationtorehabilitationclinicalpathwaysasinglecentreparallelgrouprandomisedtrial
AT legerbertrand impactofanonreturntoworkprognosticmodelworrkonallocationtorehabilitationclinicalpathwaysasinglecentreparallelgrouprandomisedtrial
AT luthifrancois impactofanonreturntoworkprognosticmodelworrkonallocationtorehabilitationclinicalpathwaysasinglecentreparallelgrouprandomisedtrial