A cross-sectional survey of consistent rehabilitation through long-term care insurance in Japan: a questionnaire survey.

There seems to be a lack of consistency of maintenance/community-based rehabilitation through long-term care insurance. We aimed to clarify whether consistent rehabilitation can be performed through long-term care insurance by questionnaires.
Materials and Methods: This study was a cross-sectional study in a nationwide survey among rehabilitation staff and care recipients who completed disease-specific rehabilitation and required maintenance/community-based rehabilitation through long-term care insurance. Consistency of rehabilitation was compared using Fisher's exact tests. The concordance of the rehabilitation evaluation and treatment conducted under medical and long-term care insurance was assessed using the κ coefficient.
Results: Six hundred questionnaires from care recipients and staff were analyzed. Of the rehabilitation staff, 264 (44%) obtained rehabilitation plans from medical institutions. There was a significant difference between the responses of "referral from the same medical corporation" and "obtaining the rehabilitation plan" by Fisher's exact test (odds ratio: 3.242; P <0.001). Most rehabilitation treatments under medical insurance comprised walking or training with parallel rods/canes [498 patients (83%)], and 454 patients (76%) received stretching and range-of-motion training for the limbs and spine for long-term care insurance. Muscle strength evaluation was the most frequently conducted under medical and long-term care insurance [383 (73%) and 487 (83%), respectively]. The concordance of the evaluation and treatment content, except for disease-specific evaluation, was low (κ coefficient≤0.6).
Conclusions: The rate of provision of rehabilitation plans was low, and evaluation and treatment content under medical and long-term care insurance was inconsistent. Our results draw attention to the need for consistent rehabilitation plans between disease-specific and maintenance/community-based rehabilitation.
Competing Interests: Y.N. received the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Health Labour Sciences Research Grant (20GA1002). The remaining authors declare that they have no financial conflict of interest with regard to the content of this report.Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article.
(Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)