496 NON-RANDOMISED FEASIBILITY STUDY OF THE REHABILITATION POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT TOOL (REPAT) IN FRAIL OLDER PEOPLE IN ACUTE SETTING

Abstract

Introduction: Clinicians are often required to decide about patients' potential to respond to rehabilitation. 'Rehabilitation potential' can determine what services patients can access. In acute hospitals clinicians have limited time to assess and deliver rehabilitation which takes into account the complexities of frailty and ageing. We set out to evaluate whether the Rehabilitation Potential Assessment Tool (RePAT)-a 15 item assessment tool and training package which emphasises person-centred approaches-was feasible and could aid rehabilitation decisions. Method(s): A non-randomised feasibility study with nested semi-structured interviews, set in the acute hospital, explored whether RePAT was deliverable and acceptable to staff, patient and carers. A maximum variation sample of physiotherapists and occupational therapists was recruited. Patient and carer participants were recruited from Healthcare of Older People wards. Staff and patient characteristics were summarised using descriptive statistics. Interview data were analysed thematically. Fidelity of completed RePAT items was assessed on how closely they matched tool guidance by two reviewers. Mean values of the two scores were calculated. Result(s): Six staff participants were recruited and trained, and assessed a total of 26 patient participants using RePAT. Mean patient age was 86.16 (+/-6.39) years. 32% were vulnerable or mildly frail, 42% moderately frail and 26% severely or very severely frail using the Clinical Frailty Scale. Mean time to complete RePAT was 32.7 (+/-9.6) minutes. 13 out of 15 RePAT items achieved fidelity. RePAT was acceptable and tolerated by staff and patients. Staff participants reported RePAT enabled them to consider the complex and dynamic nature of rehabilitation decisions in a more structured and consistent way. Conclusion(s): RePAT was found to be acceptable and tolerated by staff, carers and patients. It allowed clinicians to make explicit their reasoning behind rehabilitation potential decision-making and encouraged them to become more cognisant of ethical dilemmas and biases.