Comparison of XXXX managed in specialised spinal rehabilitation units with those managed in non-specialised rehabilitation units.

@entity1566 @entity1
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective open cohort study. OBJECTIVE: Compare the demographic characteristics and rehabilitation outcomes for both non-traumatic @entity1566 (NT- @entity1566 ) and traumatic @entity1566 (T- @entity1566 ) @entity1 admitted into either specialist @entity1566 rehabilitation units (SCIRUs) or non-specialist rehabilitation units (NSRUs). SETTING: Rehabilitation units in Australia. METHODS: The Australasian Rehabilitation Outcomes Centre maintains a national database on inpatients admitted to most (130/145) public and private rehabilitation units in Australia. @entity1 were included if they had a diagnosis of @entity1566 ( @entity1566 ) and were discharged between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2006. @entity1 were excluded if admitted for <7 days, only for assessment, or were a readmission following a previous @entity1566 . RESULTS: There were 668 @entity1 with confirmed @entity1566 admitted (NT- @entity1566 n=361, 54.0%; T- @entity1566 n=307, 46.0%). NT- @entity1566 @entity1 were much less likely to be admitted into a specialist SCIRU (30.5%) compared with T- @entity1566 @entity1 (70.4%). For both NT- @entity1566 and T- @entity1566 @entity1 , those admitted to a specialist SCIRU tended to be younger (P=0.000), have a longer length of stay in rehabilitation (P=0.000), and lower Functional Independence Measure (FIM) motor subscale score on admission (P=0.000) than those admitted to a NSRU. For NT- @entity1566 @entity1 , after adjusting for covariates, those admitted into specialist SCIRU had greater improvement in their FIM motor score during rehabilitation. This finding was not demonstrated in T- @entity1566 @entity1 . CONCLUSIONS: There are differences in the characteristics of @entity1566 @entity1 admitted to SCIRU compared with NSRU. NT- @entity1566 @entity1 admitted to SCIRU have greater functional gain.
