Rehabilitation of cognitive and motor functions in younger and older patients with vascular brain damage, rheumatologic illness and in post- surgery patients

This study presents results of inpatient rehabilitation (as monitored by Functional Independence Measure (FIM)) ofpatients with vascular brain damage (n¼ 78), post surgery patients (n¼ 62) and of patients with rheumatologic illness (n¼45). These patients were divided into two age groups (cut off point 65 years). There were significant differences in the FIMscores in all three diagnosis groups between the younger and the older patients at discharge, the younger patients reaching ahigher FIM score. However, there were no substantialdifferences between the two age groups in FIM gains the length ofstay in any of the diagnosis groups. This study indicates that although younger patients reach higher FIM score atadmission and at discharge the patients older than 65 improved in a comparable way during the same length of stay thusrequiring comparable financial resources.Keywords:functional independence measure; older adults; post-surgery; rehabilitation; rheumatologic illness; vascular braindamageIntroductionIt has been suggested that elderly people represent aseparate rehabilitation group, as there are substantialdifferences in functionaloutcome for those under the ageof 80 and those over 80 (Hanks and Lichtenberg, 1996).However, a study performed in Italy showed that inpatientrehabilitation is as substantially effective and efficient forolder as it is for younger patients (cut-off point ¼ 75 years)(Tesio et al., 1996). Cifu et al. (1996) maintain thatalthough older persons (with traumatic brain injury)demonstrated functionalchanges, the cost of change wassubstantially higher than for younger patients, andcoincided with longer stay. This study deals with thequestion of whether there are differences between a groupof rehabilitation patients under 65 and those over 65 inregard to motor and cognitive independence at admissionand discharge, and whether there are any differences in theoutcome of the rehabilitation in these two groups implyingdifferent costs (Taylor and Kirby, 1999).