Purpose: To describe the extended Rehabilitation Complexity Scale (RCS-E) and its factor structure, and to determine whether it provides added value over the RCS-version 2 to identify patients with highly complex rehabilitation needs. Method: A cohort analysis of prospectively-collected routine clinical data from 331 patients with complex neurological disabilities undergoing inpatient rehabilitation in a tertiary specialist neurorehabilitation unit in the UK. RCS-E and RCS-v2 scores were recorded in parallel by the multi-disciplinary team (MDT) at fortnightly intervals, alongside the Northwick Park nursing (NPDS) and therapy (NPTDA) dependency scales, capturing nursing care and therapy interventions in staff hours/week. Results: Very strong correlations were found between total RCS-v2 and RCS-E scores (ρ = 0.954); the RCS-E “Care & nursing” subscale and care/nursing hours/week (ρ = 0.838, p < 0.001); and the RCS-E “Therapy” subscale and total therapy hours/week (p = 0.697, p < 0.001). The RCS-E showed better discrimination for complex therapy needs than the RCS-v2, but not for complex care/nursing needs. The RCS-E factor structure was similar to the RCS-v2, with moderate internal consistency overall, separating into two distinct dimensions (“Nursing/medical care + Equipment” and “Therapy”). Conclusion: The RCS-E provides an equivalent measure of complexity to the RCS-v2, but offers added value in identifying patients with highly complex therapy and equipment needs.Implications for RehabilitationAssessing complexity of rehabilitation needs presents a challenge throughout the world.The Rehabilitaton Complexity Scales provide a simple measure of complexity of rehabilitation needs, which take account of basic care, specialist nursing, therapy and medical interventions.The extended version (RCS-E) presented here may offer a more sensitive tool for detecting patients with highly complex needs for therapy and equipment in specialist rehabilitation settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Turner‐Stokes et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: