|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
EDITORIAL COMMENTARY |
| Neurorehabilitation |
Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr S Fleminger
Maudsley Hospital, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 8AZ, UK; s.fleminger@iop.kcl.ac.uk
Keywords: acquired brain injury; continuing care; cost efficiency; FIM; functional independence measure; rehabilitation
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
The Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry publishes few papers on the systems and costs of health service provision. Those it does should have a clear clinical message for our multidisciplinary readership as is the case for the paper by Turner-Stokes et al (see pages6349) on the cost efficiency of neurorehabilitation.1
Commissioners of health services, given the task of getting value for money for their patients, want to know that the treatments offered are effective and that the cost matches the size of the effect; treatments should be cost effective. But commissioners of rehabilitation services and long term care may also ask, can it save us money in the long term? By investing in this treatment will the patient need less expensive care in the future?
Turner-Stokes et al have addressed this last question by looking at the cost efficiency of in-patient neurorehabilitation; how efficient
Relevant Article
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2006 77: 634-639.
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |