EG10
Multiple Sclerosis and Rehabilitation: An Overview on the Use of the Different Rehabilitation Setting

Thursday, May 25, 2017
B2 (New Orleans Convention Center)
Michela Ponzio, PhD , Scientific Research Area, Italian MS Society, Genoa, Italy, Genova, Italy
Giampaolo Brichetto, MD, PhD , Scientific Research Area, Italian MS Society, Genoa, Italy, Genova, Italy
Mario Alberto Battaglia, MD , Department of Physiopathology, Experimental Medicine and Public Health, University of Siena, Italy, Siena, Italy
Andrea Tacchino, PhD , Scientific Research Area, Italian MS Society, Genoa, Italy, Genova, Italy
Andrea Tacchino, PhD , Scientific Research Area, Italian MS Society, Genoa, Italy, Genova, Italy



Background: To date, a lack of accurate and complete information about how the different rehabilitation settings are actually delivered to PwMS is still present. 

Objectives: Thus the aim of the study was to describe how PwMS use the different rehabilitation settings in Italy. 

Methods: An observational retrospective study was designed and the data collected through an anonymous questionnaire distributed attending MS Clinical Centers, rehabilitation units or among PwMS affiliated to the Italian MS Society (AISM). The rehabilitation settings considered were: out-patient ambulatory therapy (OUT), hospitalised therapy (HOSP), including in-patient hospitalised therapy (in-HOSP) and out-patient hospitalised therapy (out-HOSP) and home-based therapy (HOME). 

Results: A total of 1686 subjects at all levels of disability were included in the analysis. An high number (53%, n=890) of subjects did not receive rehabilitation care in the previous three months. Main causes were probably due organizational aspects and poor transports and road networks especially in Center and the Islands. The rehabilitation setting profile of the 796 subjects obtaining rehabilitation care consisted in 58.3% (n=464) receiving only OUT setting, 9.4% (n=75) only HOSP setting and 21.7% (n=173) only HOME setting. We observed a percentage of overlap among different rehabilitation setting 3.9% (n=31) OUT-HOME, 3.6% (n=29) OUT-HOSP, 2.6% (n=21) HOSP-HOME and 0.4% (n=3) OUT-HOME-HOSP. The physiotherapy was the treatment more common among different rehabilitation setting. Only in the in-patient hospitalized therapy setting the patient received more frequently diversified treatment. Finally, 57.9% of in-HOSP and in 33.2% of OUT subjects follows a multi-disciplinary approach. 

Conclusions: The admission to rehabilitation care in Italy is still far from the standards outlined by the recent guidelines that hypothesize a multi-disciplinary evaluation and an individualized-rehabilitation-plan (PRI).