Improving the Efficiency of Robot-Mediated Rehabilitation by Using a New Organizational Model: An Observational Feasibility Study in an Italian Rehabilitation Center
Source abstract
Abstract
Robotic rehabilitation is a promising way to restore upper limb function, but new organizational models are crucial in order to improve its sustainability. We aimed to analyze the feasibility of a robot-Assisted REhabilitation Area (robotAREA) equipped with four devices, using a new organizational model in which one physiotherapist supervises up to four patients. In 33 days, 60 patients were treated in the robotAREA. Two hundred fifty-five rehabilitation sessions were analyzed, each including two, three, or four patients supervised by one physiotherapist (the R2, R3, and R4 group, respectively). For each session, the duration of (a) setup, (b) training, (c) supervision, (d) session closure, and participant satisfaction were measured. For each patient, upper limb impairment, disability, mobility, and comorbidity were recorded. The time of training in the R4 group was lower by only 2 and 3 min compared to the R2 and R3 groups, respectively, while the supervision significantly changed between the R2, R3, and R4 groups. No differences were observed in satisfaction. Moreover, according to the logistic regression analysis, when the mean disability of the group is moderate, four patients can be supervised by one physiotherapist. These results suggest that the proposed model is feasible, and the mean disability of the group could influence the proper physiotherapist/patient ratio.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery · Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation · Botulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, 20121 Milan, Italy
Department of Geriatrics, Neurosciences and Orthopaedics, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy
Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCSS, 00168 Rome, Italy
IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, 50143 Florence, Italy
References (33)
Show source-provided references
1. World Health Organization (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF, World Health Organization.
2. Mehrholz, J., Pohl, M., Platz, T., Kugler, J., and Elsner, B. (2015). Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.10.1002/14651858.CD006876.pub4 ↗
3. The Present and Future of Robotic Technology in Rehabilitation10.1007/s40141-016-0139-0 ↗
4. A systematic review protocol of timing, efficacy and cost effectiveness of upper limb therapy for motor recovery post-stroke10.1186/s13643-019-1093-6 ↗
5. An economic analysis of robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.606442 ↗
6. The economic cost of robotic rehabilitation for adult stroke patients: A systematic review10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003896 ↗
7. Masiero, S., Poli, P., Armani, M., Ferlini, G., Rizzello, R., and Rosati, G. (2014). Robotic upper limb rehabilitation after acute stroke by NeReBot: Evaluation of treatment costs. Biomed Res. Int., 2014.10.1155/2014/265634 ↗
8. A Computational-Model-Based Study of Supervised Haptics-Enabled Therapist-in-the-Loop Training for Upper-Limb Poststroke Robotic Rehabilitation10.1109/TMECH.2018.2806918 ↗
9. The arm studio to intensify the upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: Concept, acceptance, utilization and preliminary clinical results10.2340/16501977-0517 ↗
10. Effect on arm function and cost of robot-assisted group therapy in subacute patients with stroke and a moderately to severely affected arm: A randomized controlled trial10.1177/0269215513516967 ↗
11. Technology-assisted stroke rehabilitation in Mexico: A pilot randomized trial comparing traditional therapy to circuit training in a Robot/technology-assisted therapy gym10.1186/s12984-016-0190-1 ↗
12. Aprile, I., Cruciani, A., Germanotta, M., Gower, V., Pecchioli, C., Cattaneo, D., Vannetti, F., Padua, L., and Gramatica, F. (2019). Upper Limb Robotics in Rehabilitation: An Approach to Select the Devices, Based on Rehabilitation Aims, and Their Evaluation in a Feasibility Study. Appl. Sci., 9.10.3390/app9183920 ↗
13. Aprile, I., Germanotta, M., Cruciani, A., Loreti, S., Pecchioli, C., Cecchi, F., Montesano, A., Galeri, S., Diverio, M., and Falsini, C. (2019). Upper Limb Robotic Rehabilitation after Stroke: A Multicenter, Randomized Clinical Trial. J. Neurol. Phys. Ther., in press.10.1097/NPT.0000000000000295 ↗
14. Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation10.1016/0895-4356(89)90065-6 ↗
15. Motor evaluation in vascular hemiplegia10.1159/000115178 ↗
16. Motor and functional recovery after stroke: Accuracy of physical therapists’ predictions
17. Rating chronic medical illness burden in geropsychiatric practice and research: Application of the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale10.1016/0165-1781(92)90005-N ↗
18. Validation of a measure of physical illness burden at autopsy: The Cumulative Illness Rating Scale10.1111/j.1532-5415.1993.tb05945.x ↗
19. A manual of guidelines to score the modified cumulative illness rating scale and its validation in acute hospitalized elderly patients10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01935.x ↗
20. The validation of the visual analogue scale for patient satisfaction after total hip arthroplasty10.1007/s12570-012-0100-3 ↗
21. Effects of augmented exercise therapy time after stroke: A meta-analysis10.1161/01.STR.0000143153.76460.7d ↗
22. Functional outcomes can vary by dose: Learning-based sensorimotor training for patients stable poststroke10.1177/1545968308317431 ↗
23. Physiotherapy after stroke: More is better?10.1002/pri.6120010204 ↗
24. Impact of intensity of practice after stroke: Issues for consideration10.1080/09638280500534861 ↗
25. The impact of timing and dose of rehabilitation delivery on functional recovery of stroke patients10.1016/S1726-4901(09)70066-8 ↗
26. Swank, C., Sikka, S., Driver, S., Bennett, M., and Callender, L. (2019). Feasibility of integrating robotic exoskeleton gait training in inpatient rehabilitation. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol.10.1080/17483107.2019.1587014 ↗
27. Poli, P., Morone, G., Rosati, G., and Masiero, S. (2013). Robotic Technologies and Rehabilitation: New Tools for Stroke Patients’ Therapy. Biomed Res. Int., 2013.10.1155/2013/153872 ↗
28. Extrinsic feedback for motor learning after stroke: What is the evidence?10.1080/09638280500534937 ↗
29. Masiero, S., Poli, P., Rosati, G., Zanotto, D., Iosa, M., Paolucci, S., and Morone, G. (2014). The value of robotic systems in stroke rehabilitation. Expert Rev. Med. Devices.10.1586/17434440.2014.882766 ↗
30. Rehabilitation robots for the treatment of sensorimotor deficits: A neurophysiological perspective10.1186/s12984-018-0383-x ↗
31. Functional and structural plasticity in motor cortex: Implications for stroke recovery10.1016/S1047-9651(02)00054-2 ↗
32. Robotic and clinical evaluation of upper limb motor performance in patients with Friedreich’s Ataxia: An observational study10.1186/s12984-015-0032-6 ↗
33. Reliability, validity and discriminant ability of the instrumental indices provided by a novel planar robotic device for upper limb rehabilitation10.1186/s12984-018-0385-8 ↗