Transcript

558 Guidelines DOI: 10.1111/j.1610-0387.2011.07686.x

JDDG | 7˙2011 (Band 9) © Deutsche Dermatologische Gesellschaft u. a. • Journal compilation © Blackwell Verlag GmbH, Berlin • JDDG • 1610-0379/2011/0907

PreambleGuidelines are systematically developeddescriptions and recommendations thatare designed to assist doctors and pati-ents in making decisions concerning ap-propriate healthcare measures (preven-tion, diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up)under specific medical conditions. Gui-delines represent the current state ofknowledge (controlled clinical studies,expert knowledge) and thus are subjectto ongoing revisions, and if necessary,updates. Guidelines are not intended torestrict physicians from choosing themethods they consider most appropriate,nor does following a guideline necessa-rily guarantee diagnostic or treatmentsuccess. The field of medicine is in con-stant flux, and thus guidelines are not in-tended to be exhaustive. The choice ofappropriate treatment is decided by thedoctor and patient.

IntroductionRehabilitation has a long tradition inGermany. Over the years, the area of re-habilitation has undergone continual ad-vancements and has also become morespecialized. The last major advancementcame with the German Social SecurityCode (SGB) IX. According to § 1 SGBIX, people who have a disability, or whoare threatened with impending disability,are entitle to receive assistance to helpthem live autonomously and to ensuretheir equal participation in society, and

to avoid or fight discrimination. Corre-sponding to the specifications on qualitymanagement in the SGB V, the new German Social Security Code IX requires rehabilitation facilities to makerecommendations together with centralassociations of care providers for ensuringand developing the quality of services offered (§ 20, section 1 SGB IX). Guide-lines are one part of quality management(Beckmann et al. 2005, Wehrmann2005).

Comment: Despite wide variation inevidence levels in the literature, thisguideline on inpatient rehabilitationfor adult patients with atopic derma-titis was developed to address this in-creasingly relevant (epidemiologicallyand economically) disease and its tre-atment. The variation in the literatureis due to the complexity of the diseaseitself as well as rehabilitation measu-res. The identification of individualparameters (as in an experiment) is all but impossible (Müller-Fahrnow,2000).In 2006 the “Guidelines on Rehabilita-tion in Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine” were published along with“General Preliminary Remarks on Rehabilitation in Pediatric and Adoles-cent Medicine and the Guidelines(AWMF registry).

The basis for the formulation is a litera-ture search of the databases Medline andDIMDI.

The guideline was created between Apriland December 2000 by the authors Buh-les, Wehrmann, and Amon (2005) overthe course of one meeting and several telephone conferences. It was then forwar-ded to experts in the field and relevantself-help groups. The last revision was inthe fall of 2009. There was no financialsupport for the creation of the guideline.The guideline is valid for three years.

Target groupAdult patients with atopic dermatitis(Novak and Bieber 2005, Wüthrich et al.2005), whose ability to work or whoseeveryday life is threatened or impairedand who, due to the complexity of thedisease, require multi-dimensional, reha-bilitative treatment.

Comment: Atopic dermatitis is a here-ditary (polygenetic), chronic, recurrentnon-infectious disease of multi-factorial etiology that involves immun-ological changes (e.g., total IgE is oftenelevated and there is detection of speci-fic IgE). The typical clinical appearanceconsists of severe pruritus with far-reaching consequences for the patient’slife.

ObjectiveThis guideline is intended to help dermatologists, family physicians, andevaluators and insurers in regard to patients with atopic dermatitis who re-quire inpatient medical rehabilitation as

Guideline

S1 Guideline: Dermatological inpatient rehabilitationin adult atopic dermatitis*Norbert Buhles, Jochen Wehrmann, Klaus-Dieter Hinsch, Wolf Nürnberg

*Synonyms for atopic dermatitis include atopic eczema, neurodermatitis, endogenous eczema, etc.

Guidelines 559

© Deutsche Dermatologische Gesellschaft u. a. • Journal compilation © Blackwell Verlag GmbH, Berlin • JDDG • 1610-0379/2011/0907 JDDG | 7˙2011 (Band 9)

opposed to those who receive outpatientservices or acute inpatient care. It shouldalso help achieve targeted, optimized,multimodal therapy (Nürnberg 2005) inview of the rehabilitation goal of the pa-tient and his or her functional limitati-ons (ICF; Niederauer et al. 2005).

Need for rehabilitation From the point of view of disability insu-rance, rehabilitation is considered neces-sary when a person’s ability to work isthreatened (e.g., long periods of unemployment, uncertain continuedemployment at his or her current job;see: atopy and occupational eczema;Diepgen 1998). Accident insurance alsocovers rehabilitation measures for occu-pationally-related skin diseases (Diepgenet al. 2005). Statutory health insurersconsider rehabilitation to be necessarywhen everyday activities are restricted (or there is impending restriction) for alonger period of time, especially whenthere is a need for nursing care, and if amulti-dimensional, interdisciplinary tre-atment approach is needed in addition tocurative measures (Rehabilitationsricht-linien [rehabilitation guidelines] 2004).

Comment 1: The German Pension Administration (Deutsche Rentenversi-cherung Bund [DRV]) has publishedthe “Guidelines on Necessary Rehabili-tation in Skin Diseases” (2005) inwhich the need for rehabilitation in patients with atopic dermatitis is eluci-dated: “Depending on individual factors as well as occupational and social conditions• in chronic recurrent forms with shor-

ter symptom-free intervals • if a larger and/or visible body surface

area is involved • if a therapeutic effect or optimization

of treatment with the goal of the mostcomplete healing possible is onlyachievable with the methods of reha-bilitation

• if other atopic diseases are present(even if there is less skin involve-ment)

• with certain risk factors (need foreducation, psychosocial stress). Thedegree of psychological effect largelydetermines the choice of rehabilita-tion center with a psychosoma-tic/dermatological treatment focus

• for certain occupations, medical re-habilitation cannot always eliminatethe considerable hazard or limitati-

ons presented by that occupation. Itmust be reviewed whether supportfor participation in employment isindicated. Corresponding functionalcapacity evaluation (FCE) modelsshould be used. (Buhles 2003, Erb-stößer 2003).

Comment 2: On 1 April 2004 the Ger-man Rehabilitation Council (Bundes-arbeitsgemeinschaft für Rehabilitation[BAR]) put forth the “Recommendati-ons for outpatient dermatological rehabilitation” which take into accountthe requirements of the SGB IX and theInternational Classification of Functio-ning, Disability, and Health (ICF). Similar to inpatient rehabilitation, outpatient measures also represent a holistic concept of rehabilitation inclu-ding a social medicine assessment. Out-patient rehabilitation also includes acomprehensive, rehabilitation-specific,and interdisciplinary treatment spec-trum, which is tailored to the indivi-dual patient situation and may consistof physical, psychological, nutritional,social, and educational components(BAR 2004). Outpatient rehabilita-tion may not be appropriate in the following situations:• if curative therapy ... is adequate• the type or extent of disability or

limitation is beyond the scope of outpatient rehabilitation

• lacking mobility• severe multimorbidity• inadequate psychological stability• the need for nursing care and conti-

nued medical supervision• the need to be removed temporarily

from his or her social surroundings Comment 3: With the aim of targeted,effective, and efficient rehabilitation,in March 2004 a new rehabilitationguideline was created for German sta-tutory health insurers (rehabilitationguideline 2004). The implementationof the guideline varies considerably byregion (Nürnberg and Wehrmann2009).

When choosing an appropriate rehabili-tation site, desired factors such as low number of allergens, increased UVradiation exposure, or diminished envi-ronmental hazards may be taken into account (“climate therapy”).

Suitability for rehabilitation The necessary insurance requirementsmust be fulfilled, the patient must be

physically and psychologically able toparticipate in rehabilitation measures,and he or she must be sufficiently moti-vated or able to be motivated.

Rehabilitation prognosisThe prerequisite for approval to partici-pate in a medical rehabilitation programis a positive prognosis for the success ofrehabilitation. The prognosis for successof rehabilitation is a medically-foundedprediction of the likelihood of success ofrehabilitative measures based on the disease, the prior course of the disease,and the potential for compensationthrough the furthering of individual positive context factors by means of appropriate measures taken over a reasonable amount of time (Rehabilitati-onsrichtlinien [rehabilitation guidelines]2004). Disability insurance requires a positive prognosis for restoring or atleast stabilizing the patient’s ability to work, or for those applying for disabi-lity payments, a statement on their ability to work.

DiagnosisEven before rehabilitation begins, amulti-dimensional diagnosis should bemade for a targeted referral of the pati-ent. This requirement has already beenaddressed by the previously mentionedrehabilitation guideline and is found in a4-page application form with variousquestions on disease history and diagno-sis, co-morbidity, functional limitations(everyday activities, work, autonomy),context factors (social environment, useof social services), statements on the pa-tient’s ability to participate in rehabilita-tion measures, the prognosis for success,and the clearly stated requirements of re-habilitation (Bekanntmachung 2004).Examples of screening measures for psy-chosocial factors include the FLQA(Freiburg Life Quality Assessment) andthe MHF (Marburg Skin Survey [Mar-burger Haut Fragebogen]) (Augustin et al. 2000).The diagnosis in the rehabilitation clinicalso includes a specific diagnosis of thepatient’s ability to function in his or heroccupation if there are questions on thepatient’s employment situation and ability to work (ICF – InternationalClassification of Functioning, Disability,and Health).The first Functional Capacity Evaluation(FCE) model in the field of dermatology/

560 Guidelines

JDDG | 7˙2011 (Band 9) © Deutsche Dermatologische Gesellschaft u. a. • Journal compilation © Blackwell Verlag GmbH, Berlin • JDDG • 1610-0379/2011/0907

allergology was developed by Buhles(2003) in the form of the “occupation-tested skin protection plan.” As a prac-tical occupational ability measure for(atopic) hand eczema, the functional diagnosis also focuses on participation inemployment (Erbstößer 2003).

Therapy goalsTreatment goals are formulated based onthe diagnosis, taking into account thepatient’s ability (expectation and motiva-tion), the tasks of social medicine, andthe duration of treatment. The reader isreferred to treatment goals for dermato-logy in Vol. 18 of the DRV papers fromJanuary 2000, and for psychology thePsy-BaDo Manual (Heuft, Senf 1998).The use of the ICF (Niederauer et al.2005) is increasingly necessary.

Therapy elementsThe treatment of atopic dermatitis requi-res an individual combination of therapyelements that are stage-appropriate andsuited to the patient’s needs1, 2 (Nürnberg2005)• external therapy • systemic therapy • phototherapy• hydrotherapy/balneotherapy• climate therapy • diet• relaxation techniques• information/education• sports therapy• psychotherapyA complete list is found in the guidelineNeurodermatitis, AWMF registry 013/027(Werfel et al. 2008).

EvaluationThe SCORAD score and co-morbidityshould be evaluated at specific intervals(admission, discharge, 6 months after di-scharge) and the duration of the patient’sstay. If therapy goals are included in theevaluation, the patient’s self-assessmentand the observer assessment should bedifferentiated. Methodological problemswith operationalization should also betaken into account.

If a new fee system is adopted for inpatient rehabilitation services, it is

possible that not only co-morbidity butalso complications related to the disease (Vieluf and Ring 1991) willhave to be taken into account (Buhles et al. 2000).

To evaluate psychosocial parameters, aquality of life survey (e.g., FLQA) or adisease-specific survey (e.g., MHF) maybe used (Augustin et al. 2000).

Economic parametersCurrent results of outcomes research demonstrates the clinical, patient, andeconomic benefits of treatment.

Economic costs may be divided into direct and indirect costs. Indirect costsin particular due to lost working days(unemployment insurance, compensa-tion, loss of productivity), re-trainingmeasures, or disability/early retirementquickly lead to four-figure amounts per case per year (Gieler et al. 1999,Rychlik and Kilburg 2000, Ehlken et al. 2005). Given that the incidenceof atopic dermatitis continues to rise,clearly these costs should be reduced if possible.

ImplementationIn a guideline clearing procedure, theguidelines were given a level 1 rating andsubsequently published in book form(Korting et al. 2007) and in a journal ofdermatology (2008). This occurred inagreement with the Germany Society ofDermatology (DDG) and the workinggroup on rehabilitation in dermatology(AReD). In addition, insurers have beeninformed since, in the context of theirown quality management and legal requirements, they must pay special attention to guidelines (Beckmann et al.2005). Relevant self-help dermatologygroups were also included.

The new guidelines on medical rehabi-litation (Rehabilitation Guidelines[Rehabilitationsrichtlinien] 2004) require increased social medicine com-petence on the part of the prescribingphysician. This means there is a betterchance of implementation of the guide-lines since adhering to them facilitatescomplying with the requirements (Bekanntmachung 2004).

Consensus-building procedureAuthors: Norbert Buhles, Askepios-Nordseeklinik, Westerland/ Sylt; JochenWehrmann, Rothaarklinik, Bad Berle-burg; Klaus-Dieter Hinsch, DRV-KlinkBorkum-Riff, Borkum; Wolfgang Nürn-berg, Osteeklinik Kühlungsborn for theAReD (working group on rehabilitationin dermatology) for the sub-commissionon rehabilitation of the Quality Com-mission of the German Society of Der-matology (DDG) and the German Der-matologists’ Association (BVDD).Created on: 08/2001Last update: 11/2009Next update: 10/2012

Correspondence toDr. med. Norbert BuhlesDermatologische AbteilungAsklepios NordseeklinikNorderstr. 81D-25980 WesterlandTel.: 04651-841500Fax: 04651-841509E-mail: [email protected]

ReferencesAugustin M, Amon U, Bullinger M, GielerU. Empfehlungen zur Erfassung vonLebensqualität in der Dermatologie. Der-matol Psychosom 2000; 1: 76–82BAR 2004: www.bar-frankfurt.de/publik.Beckmann U, Klosterhuis H, Mitschele A.Qualitätsentwicklung durch Qual-itätssicherung – Erfahrungen aus zehnJahren Qualitätssicherung der Rehabilita-tion. Deutsche Angestellten Versicherung2005; 431–438Bekanntmachung: 14. Änderung der Verein-barung über Vordrucke für die vertragsärztlicheVersorgung. Deutsches Ärzteblatt 101,Heft 26 (2004): C-532.Bürger W, Morfeld M. Gibt es schichtspezifische Benachteiligungen beider Inanspruchnahme von medizinischenRehabilitationsmaßnahmen? Die Reha-bilitation (1999) 2. Suppl. 38:S134–S141.Buhles N. Sozialmedizinische Begutachtungfür die gesetzliche Rentenversicherung, 6. Au-flage. Hrsg.: Verband Deutscher Rentenver-

1In the literature, some of the individual treatment elements, with various levels of evidence and different indications, are contro-versially discussed. 2Based on current knowledge (Ring 1998, Schäfer 2008) the following treatment measures have not yet been proven effective orare considered superfluous or out-of-date: homeopathy, acupuncture, autologous blood therapy and modifications thereof, aro-matherapy, auto-homologous immunotherapy after Kief, microbiological therapy, colonic irrigation, bioresonance therapy.

Guidelines 561

© Deutsche Dermatologische Gesellschaft u. a. • Journal compilation © Blackwell Verlag GmbH, Berlin • JDDG • 1610-0379/2011/0907 JDDG | 7˙2011 (Band 9)

sicherungsträger (VDR). Springer Verlag2003: Kapitel 19.Buhles N, Seifart C. Entwurf einer klin-isch/sozialmedizinischen Einteilung der rel-evanten Schweregrade bei Neurodermitis(ND) Derm 2000; 6: 363–366.Buhles N, Wehrmann J, Amon U. Derma-tologische stationäre Rehabilitation beiatopischer Dermatitis Erwachsener. JDDG4/2005: 304–308.Cole WC, Roth HL, Sachs LB. Group Psy-chotherapy as an Aid in the Medical Treat-ment of Eczema. Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Dermatology 1998; 18:286–291.Diepgen T. Die atopische Hautdiathese.Gentner Verlag, Stuttgart, 1991.Diepgen TL. Rehabilitation von berufsbe-dingten Hauterkrankungen. Hautarzt2005; 56: 637–643.Diepgen T. Berufsdermatosen. Medienund Medizin Verlagsgesellschaft mbH,München, 1998.Ehlers A, Gieler U, Stangier U. Treatmentof Atopic Dermatitis: A Comparison ofPsychological and Dermatological Ap-proaches to relaps Prevention. Journal Con-sult Clinical Psychol 1995; 63: 624–635.Ehlken B, Möhrenschlager M, Kugland B,Berger K, Quednau K, Ring J. Krankheit-skostenstudie bei Patienten mit atopischemEkzem in Deutschland. Hautarzt 2005; 56:1144–1151.Erbstößer, S, Nellessen, G, Schuntermann, M(2003): FCE-Studie – FCE-Systeme zurBeurteilung der arbeitsbezogenen Leis-tungsfähigkeit (Abschlussbericht). In: DRF-Schriften, Band 44: Sonderausgabe, 63.Gall K, Salzer B, Hornstein OP. Gruppen-sport als therapeutisches Adjuvans bei Neurodermitis. Deutsches Ärzteblatt 1997;40: A-2564–2568.Gieler U, Hohmann M, Niemeier V et al.,Cost Evaluation in Atopic Eczema. J Dermatol Treatment 1999; 10 (Suppl. 1):S15–S20.Gutenbrunner C, Hildebrandt G. Hand-buch der Balneologie und medizinischenKlimatologie. Springer Verlag, Berlin,1998.Hansmeier T, Vogt K, Spyra K, Müller-Fahrnow W. Zum Begriff und zur Mess-barkeit der Rehabilitationsbedürftigkeit –Ein Rahmenkonzept für einen mehrdimen-sionalen Untersuchungsansatz. Die Reha-bilitation (1999) 2. Suppl. 38: S86–S92.Harth W, Gieler U. Psychosomatische Dermatologie. Springer, Heidelberg,2006.

Herd RM, Tidman MJ, Prescott RJ,Hunter JAA. The Cost of Atopic Eczema.1996; 135: 20–23.Heuft G, Senf W. Praxis der Qual-itätssicherung in der Psychotherapie: DasManual zur Psy-BaDo. Thieme Verlag,Stuttgart, 1998.Hoegl L, Fichter M, Plewig G. StationäreVerhaltensmedizin bei chronischenHautkrankheiten. Hautarzt 1998; 49:270–275.ICF www.dimdi.de, Kurzform im DÄ 101,Heft 17 (2004) B990.Korting HC, Callies R, Reusch M,Schlaeger M, Sterry W: DermatologischeQualitätssicherung – Leitlinien undEmpfehlungen. ABW Wissenschaftsverlag,Berlin, 2007.Lange S, Zschocke I, Langhardt S, AmonU, Augustin M. Effekte kombinierter ther-apeutischer Maßnahmen bei Patienten mitPsoriasis und atopischer Dermatitis. Hau-tarzt 1999; 50: 791–797.Leitlinie Dermatologische stationäre Rehabil-itation bei atopischer Dermatitis Erwach-sener. J Dtsch Ges Dermatol 2008; 6:510–513 sowie www.leitlinien.net.Leitlinie Neurodermitis: www.leitlinien. net;Werfel et al. (2008).Leitlinien für Rehabilitation in der Kinder-und Jugendmedizin, www. leitlinien.net(2006).Leitlinien zur Rehabilitationsbedürftigkeitbei Krankheiten der Haut“ (2005):www.deutsche-rentenversicherung-bund.deSuche: Leitlinien Dermatologie.Maier-Riehle B, Schliehe F: Rehabilita-tionsbedarf und Antragsverhalten. Die Rehabilitation (1999) 2. Suppl. 38: S100–S115.Müller-Fahrnow W. Der Beitrag der Reha-bilitationsforschung zur aktuellen Leitlin-iendiskussion. In: Leitlinien als medizinischeund ökonomische Steuerungsinstrumente?BfA (Hrsg.) 2000.Niederauer H. H., Schmidt-Ott G., BuhlesN. Die Internationale Klassifikation derFunktionsfähigkeit, Behinderung undGesundheit (ICF) in der DermatologischenRehabilitation. Hautarzt 2005; 56: 631–636.Novak N, Bieber T. Pathogenese desatopischen Ekzems. JDDG 2005; 3:994–1004.Nürnberg W, Wehrmann J. Die dermatolo-gische Rehabilitation – Fakten, Daten undAnalysen. J Dtsch Ges Dermatol 2009; 7:172–175.Nürnberg W. Stationäre Rehabilitation vonchronischen Hauterkrankungen am Beispiel

des atopischen Ekzems. Hautarzt 2005; 56:644–648.Petermann F, Warschburger P (Hrsg.) Neu-rodermitis. Hogrefe, Göttingen, 1999.Peters M, Löwenberg H. Prognose und Be-handlungserfolg bei stationärer psychother-apeutisch-dermatologischer Behandlungvon Neurodermitispatienten. Hautarzt1993; 44: 210–214.Raspe H, Héon-Kalin V: Zur empirischenErmittlung von Rehabilitationsbedarf undAntragsverhalten. Die Rehabilitation(1999) 2. Suppl. 38: S.100–115.Richtlinien des Gemeinsamen Bundesauss-chusses über Leistungen zur medizinischenRehabilitation (Rehabilitationsrichtlinien)nach § 92 Abs.1,Satz 2 Nr. 8 SGB V in derFassung vom 16.03.2004 (BAnz.S.6769).In: Deutsches Ärzteblatt 101, Heft 17(2004) B-986.Ring J. Neurodermitis. Ecomed Verlag,Landshut, 1998.Rychlik R, Kilburg A. The Basics of HealthEconomics: An Example from Dermatol-ogy. Dermatol Psychosom 2000, 1:105–109:Schäfer T. Alternativverfahren bei atopis-chem Ekzem. Allergo J 2008; 17:466–475.Schlipphak A, Heidenreich T, Stangier U.Ambulante Rehabilitation von Neuroder-mitis-Patienten. Psychomed 1996; 8:78–82.Stangier U, Gieler U, Ehlers A. Neuroder-mitis bewältigen. Springer, Berlin, 1996.Stangier U. Zur Praxis der Verhaltensthera-pie bei dermatologischen Störungen. ZDermatol 1999; 185: 82–86.Vieluf D, Ring J. Complications and Dis-eases associated with Atopic Eczema. In:Ruzicka T, Ring J, Przybilla B (Hrsg).Handbook of Atopic Eczema. Springer,Berlin 1991, 54–79.Verband Deutscher Rentenversicherungsträger(Hrg.) Das Qualitätssicherungsprogramm dergesetzlichen Rentenversicherung in dermedizinischen Rehabilitation. Instrumenteund Verfahren. Band 18, 2000.Wehrmann J. Indikation für eine psycho-somatisch-dermatologische Rehabilita-tionsbehandlung. Hautarzt 1996; 47:253–257.Wehrmann J. Leitlinien zur dermatologis-chen Rehabilitation. Hautarzt 2005; 56:626–630.Wüthrich B, Roll A, Fischer B, Senti G,Schmid-Grendelmeier P. Aktuelles zuratopischen Dermatitis (Neurodermitis). Al-lergologie 2005; 28: 92–104.


Top Related