BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: About 50% of stroke survivors are discharged to their homes with lasting disability. Knowledge, however, of the importance of follow-up services that targets these patients is sparse. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate 2 models of follow-up intervention after discharge. The study hypothesis was that intervention could reduce readmission rates and institutionalization and prevent functional decline. We report the results regarding readmission. METHODS: This randomized study included 155 stroke patients with persistent impairment and disability who, after the completion of inpatient rehabilitation, were discharged to their homes. The patients were randomized to 1 of 2 follow-up interventions provided in addition to standard care or to standard aftercare. Fifty-four received follow-up home visits by a physician (INT1-HVP), 53 were provided instructions by a physiotherapist in their home (INT2-PI), and 48 received standard aftercare only (controls). Baseline characteristics for the 3 groups were comparable. Six months after discharge, data were obtained on readmission and institutionalization. RESULTS: The readmission rates within 6 months after discharge were significantly lower in the intervention groups than in the control group (INT1-HVP 26%, INT2-PI 34%, controls 44%; P=0.028). Multivariate analysis of readmission risk showed a significant favorable effect of intervention (INT1-HVP or INT2-PI) in interaction with length of hospital stay (P=0.0332), indicating that the effect of intervention was strongest for patients with a prolonged inpatient rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: Readmission is common among disabled stroke survivors. Follow-up intervention after discharge seems to be a way of preventing readmission, especially for patients with long inpatient rehabilitation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: About 50% of stroke survivors are discharged to their homes with lasting disability. Knowledge, however, of the importance of follow-up services that targets these patients is sparse. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate 2 models of follow-up intervention after discharge. The study hypothesis was that intervention could reduce readmission rates and institutionalization and prevent functional decline. We report the results regarding readmission. METHODS: This randomized study included 155 strokepatients with persistent impairment and disability who, after the completion of inpatient rehabilitation, were discharged to their homes. The patients were randomized to 1 of 2 follow-up interventions provided in addition to standard care or to standard aftercare. Fifty-four received follow-up home visits by a physician (INT1-HVP), 53 were provided instructions by a physiotherapist in their home (INT2-PI), and 48 received standard aftercare only (controls). Baseline characteristics for the 3 groups were comparable. Six months after discharge, data were obtained on readmission and institutionalization. RESULTS: The readmission rates within 6 months after discharge were significantly lower in the intervention groups than in the control group (INT1-HVP 26%, INT2-PI 34%, controls 44%; P=0.028). Multivariate analysis of readmission risk showed a significant favorable effect of intervention (INT1-HVP or INT2-PI) in interaction with length of hospital stay (P=0.0332), indicating that the effect of intervention was strongest for patients with a prolonged inpatient rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: Readmission is common among disabled stroke survivors. Follow-up intervention after discharge seems to be a way of preventing readmission, especially for patients with long inpatient rehabilitation.
Authors: Manoj K Mittal; Alejandro A Rabinstein; Jay Mandrekar; Robert D Brown; Kelly D Flemming Journal: Int J Neurosci Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 2.292
Authors: Michelle H Leppert; Stefan Sillau; Richard C Lindrooth; Sharon N Poisson; Jonathan D Campbell; Jennifer R Simpson Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Brian W Jack; Veerappa K Chetty; David Anthony; Jeffrey L Greenwald; Gail M Sanchez; Anna E Johnson; Shaula R Forsythe; Julie K O'Donnell; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Christopher Manasseh; Stephen Martin; Larry Culpepper Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-02-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Eric M Liotta; Mandeep Singh; Adam R Kosteva; Jennifer L Beaumont; James C Guth; Rebecca M Bauer; Shyam Prabhakaran; Neil F Rosenberg; Matthew B Maas; Andrew M Naidech Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 7.598