Health Service Management Study for Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate Two Models of Stroke Care

Author:

Chan Daniel K. Y.12,Levi Chris3,Cordato Dennis24,O'Rourke Fintan1,Chen Jack5,Redmond Helen6,Xu Ying-Hua1,Middleton Sandy7,Pollack Michael8,Hankey Graeme J.910

Affiliation:

1. Department of Aged Care and Rehabilitation, Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia

2. Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

3. Department of Neurology, John Hunter Hospital-Hunter Medical Research Institute, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

4. Department of Neurology, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, NSW, Australia

5. Simpson Centre for Health Services Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation & SWS Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

6. Rehabilitation Medicine, Fairfield Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia

7. Nursing Research Institute, St Vincent's & Mater Health Sydney and Australian Catholic University, St Vincent's Hospital, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia

8. Hunter Stroke Service, Hunter New England Area Health Service, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

9. School of Medicine and Pharmacology, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia

10. Department of Neurology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia

Abstract

Background The most effective and efficient model for providing organized stroke care remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare the effect of two models in a randomized controlled trial. Methods Patients with acute stroke were randomized on day one of admission to combined, co-located acute/rehabilitation stroke care or traditionally separated acute/rehabilitation stroke care. Outcomes measured at baseline and 90 days post-discharge included functional independence measure, length of hospital stay, and functional independence measure efficiency (change in functional independence measure score ÷ total length of hospital stay). Results Among 41 patients randomized, 20 were allocated co-located acute/rehabilitation stroke care and 21 traditionally separated acute/rehabilitation stroke care. Baseline measurements showed no significant difference. There was no significant difference in functional independence measure scores between the two groups at discharge and again at 90 days postdischarge (co-located acute/rehabilitation stroke care: 103·6 ± 22·2 vs. traditionally separated acute/rehabilitation stroke care: 99·5 ± 27·7; P = 0·77 at discharge; co-located acute/rehabilitation stroke care: 109·5 ± 21·7 vs. traditionally separated acute/rehabilitation stroke care: 104·4 ± 27·9; P= 0·8875 at 90 days post-discharge). Total length of hospital stay was 5·28 days less in co-located acute/rehabilitation stroke care compared with traditionally separated acute/rehabilitation stroke care (24·15 ± 3·18 vs. 29·42 ± 4·5, P = 0·35). There was significant improvement in functional independence measure efficiency score among participants assigned to co-located acute/rehabilitation stroke care compared with traditionally separated acute/rehabilitation stroke care (co-located acute/rehabilitation stroke care: median 1·60, interquartile range: 0·87–2·81; traditionally separated acute/rehabilitation stroke care: median 0·82, interquartile range: 0·27–1·57, P = 0·0393). Linear regression analysis revealed a high inverse correlation ( R2 = 0·89) between functional independence measure efficiency and time spent in the acute stroke unit. Conclusion This proof-of-concept study has shown that co-located acute/rehabilitation stroke care was just as effective as traditionally separated acute/rehabilitation stroke care as reflected in functional independence measure scores, but significantly more efficient as shown in greater functional independence measure efficiency. Co-located acute/rehabilitation stroke care has potential for significantly improved hospital bed utilization with no patient disadvantage.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Neurology

Cited by 13 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Integrated Care in Neurology: The Current Landscape and Future Directions;Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques;2024-04-29

2. Organization of Rehabilitation Services in Randomized Controlled Trials: Which Factors Influence Functional Outcome? A Systematic Review;Archives of Rehabilitation Research and Clinical Translation;2022-06

3. Ferramentas de avaliação para avaliar a independência: uma Scoping Review;Revista Portuguesa de Enfermagem de Reabilitação;2022-01-22

4. Stroke Unit- / Stroke Center-Management;Therapeutische Umschau;2021-08

5. Exploring how occupational therapists and physiotherapists evaluate rehabilitation potential of older people in acute care;British Journal of Occupational Therapy;2021-05-05

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3