Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 51-5 | Page 56

372 R. Cheng et al. Table I. Descriptives of study variables Study variable n  = 118 Days since amputation at admission to acute rehabilitation, mean (SD) [range] Days in acute rehabilitation, mean (SD) [range] Creatinine at admission, mean (SD) [range] Haemoglobin at admission, mean (SD) [range] White blood cell count at admission, mean (SD) [range] On haemodialysis at admission, n (%) On wound vac at admission, n (%) Taking intravenous antibiotics at admission, n (%) Previous amputations, n (%) Motor FIM admission and discharge, mean (SD) [range] Motor FIM gain (admission – discharge motor FIM score, mean (SD) [range] FIM efficiency (admission – discharge motor FIM score, mean (SD) [range] 15.3 (34.8) [2 to 288] 14 (7.1) [2 to 41] 1.61 (1.7) [0 to 8] 8.89 (1.42) [7 to 14] 9.12 (3.0) [4 to 19] 8 (11.3) 7 (9.9) 16 (22.5) 7 (9.9) 39.8 (10.8) [12–61] and 50.8 (14.1) [21 to 76] 10.87 (10.3) [–25 to 35] 0.84 (2.8) [–25 to 5] SD: standard deviation; FIM: Functional Independence Measure. 12.6 g/dl); 22% were being treated with IV antibiotics at the time of admission to the inpatient rehabilitation unit. Ten percent of the sample had incisions requiring wound vac, and 11% were on haemodialysis at the time of admission to the inpatient rehabilitation unit. Unplanned transfers from inpatient rehabilitation Of the 118 patients, 19 (16.1%) required an unplanned transfer from inpatient rehabilitation, with the most common causes for transfer being infection, hypoxia and renal failure (see Table II). The full model con- taining all predictors was not statistically significant, χ 2 (13, n = 111) = 19.01, p = 0.12, indicating that the model was not able to distinguish between those who did Table II. Primary reasons for unplanned discharge from rehabilitation unit Reason Number of patients Infection, unrelated to amputation Acute kidney injury Hypoxia/respiratory failure Myocardial infarction Amputation wound dehiscence Amputation wound infection Other wound complication Altered mental status Gastrointestinal bleeding Total 5 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 19 Predictors of functional gains Controlling variables of days since amputation, age, admission motor FIM, and days in inpatient rehabili- tation (for discharge motor FIM only) were entered in Step 1, explaining 0.9% of the variance in FIM efficiency, F (3, 93 = 0.29), p = 0.83. After entry of infection factors (WBC, presence of IV antibiotics) in Step 2, the total variance explained was only 6.7%, F (5, 91) = 1.31, p = 0.26). After entry of poor wound healing factors (creatinine, on haemodialysis, and on wound vac) in Step 3, the total variance explained gai- ned only a nominal amount, with 7.0%, F (8, 88) = 0.82, p = 0.56. After entry of organ failure factors (diabetes, haemoglobin value) in Step 4, there was no gain in variance explanation with 7.0%, F (10, 86) = 0.65, p = 0.77. In the final model adding previous amputa- tion, shown in Table III, only 7.2% of the variance was Table III. Logistic regression predicting likelihood of unplanned transfer from inpatient rehabilitation 95% confidence interval B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Lower Intravenous antibiotics a Creatinine –0.18 0.13 1.91 1 0.17 0.84 0.65 1.08 –1.18 0.27 1.12 0.31 1.10 0.77 1 1 0.29 0.38 0.31 1.32 0.03 0.71 2.77 2.42 Wound vac at admission c 0.49 1.53 0.10 1 0.75 1.63 0.08 32.88 –0.20 1.10 0.03 1 0.86 0.82 0.10 7.09 –0.48 0.18 0.74 0.29 0.43 0.42 1 1 0.51 0.52 0.62 1.20 0.15 0.69 2.63 2.10 –0.36 0.10 1.01 0.06 0.12 3.30 1 1 0.73 0.07 0.70 1.11 0.10 0.99 5.12 1.24 2.24 0.00 –0.07 –0.05 –2.05 0.81 0.03 0.05 0.04 4.11 7.71 0.00 1.57 1.26 0.25 1 1 1 1 1 0.01 0.96 0.21 0.26 0.62 9.40 1.00 0.94 0.95 0.13 1.93 0.95 0.84 0.88 45.74 1.05 1.04 1.04 White blood cells On haemodialysis at admission b Diabetes d Haemoglobin Previous amputation e Length of stay f and did not have an unplanned transfer from inpatient rehabilitation. The model explained between 15.7% (Cox and Snell R square) and 29.6% (Nagelkerke R-squared) of the variance in unplanned transfers and correctly classified 88.3% of cases. As shown in Table III, only gender made a unique and statistically significant contribution to the model. Gender Age Days since amputation Admission motor FIM Constant a–e referent=yes; f referent=male. SE: standard error; df: degree of freedom. www.medicaljournals.se/jrm Upper