Rohan S Grimley1,2,3, Ingrid Cm Rosbergen4, Louise Gustaffson5,6, Eleanor Horton7, Theresa Green8,9, Greg Cadigan3, Dominique A Cadilhac2,10, Suzanne Kuys11. 1. 1 Sunshine Coast Clinical School, The University of Queensland, Birtinya, QLD, Australia. 2. 2 Stroke and Ageing Research, Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia. 3. 3 Queensland State-Wide Stroke Clinical Network, Clinical Excellence Division, Queensland Department of Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 4. 4 Allied Health Services, Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service, Birtinya, QLD, Australia. 5. 5 School of Allied Health Sciences, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 6. 6 School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 7. 7 School of Nursing, Midwifery & Paramedicine, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, QLD, Australia. 8. 8 Faculty of Health, School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 9. 9 Centre for Clinical Nursing, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, QLD, Australia. 10. 10 Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, The University of Melbourne Heidelberg, VIC, Australia. 11. 11 Faculty of Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe current practice and investigate factors associated with selection for rehabilitation following acute stroke. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Seven public hospitals in Queensland, Australia. SUBJECTS: Consecutive patients surviving acute stroke. MEASURES: Rehabilitation selection processes are assessment for rehabilitation needs, referral for rehabilitation and receipt of rehabilitation. Functional impairment following stroke is modified Rankin Scale (mRS). RESULTS: We recruited 504 patients, median age 73 years (interquartile range (IQR) = 62-82), between July 2016 and January 2017. Of these, 90% (454/504) were assessed for rehabilitation needs, 76% (381/504) referred for rehabilitation, and 72% (363/504) received any rehabilitation. There was significant variation in all rehabilitation selection processes across sites (P < 0.05). In multivariable analyses, stroke unit care (odds ratio (OR) = 2.7; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.1, 6.6) and post stroke functional impairment (severe stroke mRS 4-5: OR = 10.9; 95% CI = 4.9, 24.6) were associated with receiving an assessment for rehabilitation. Receipt of rehabilitation was more likely following assessment (OR = 6.5; 95% CI = 2.9, 14.6) but less likely in patients with dementia (OR = 0.2; 95% CI = 0.1, 0.9), end-stage medical conditions (OR = 0.4; 95% CI = 0.2, 0.8) or ischaemic stroke (OR = 0.4; 95% CI = 0.1, 0.9). The odds of receiving rehabilitation increased with greater impairment: OR = 3.0 (95% CI = 1.5, 4.9) for mRS 2-3 and OR = 12.5 (95% CI = 6.5, 24.3) for mRS 4-5. Among patients with mild-moderate impairment (mRS 2-3), 39/117 (33%) received no rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: There was significant inter-site variation in rehabilitation selection processes. The major factors influencing rehabilitation access were assessment for rehabilitation needs, co-morbidities and post-stroke functional impairment. Gaps in access to rehabilitation were found in those with mild to moderate functional impairment.
OBJECTIVE: To describe current practice and investigate factors associated with selection for rehabilitation following acute stroke. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Seven public hospitals in Queensland, Australia. SUBJECTS: Consecutive patients surviving acute stroke. MEASURES: Rehabilitation selection processes are assessment for rehabilitation needs, referral for rehabilitation and receipt of rehabilitation. Functional impairment following stroke is modified Rankin Scale (mRS). RESULTS: We recruited 504 patients, median age 73 years (interquartile range (IQR) = 62-82), between July 2016 and January 2017. Of these, 90% (454/504) were assessed for rehabilitation needs, 76% (381/504) referred for rehabilitation, and 72% (363/504) received any rehabilitation. There was significant variation in all rehabilitation selection processes across sites (P < 0.05). In multivariable analyses, stroke unit care (odds ratio (OR) = 2.7; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.1, 6.6) and post stroke functional impairment (severe stroke mRS 4-5: OR = 10.9; 95% CI = 4.9, 24.6) were associated with receiving an assessment for rehabilitation. Receipt of rehabilitation was more likely following assessment (OR = 6.5; 95% CI = 2.9, 14.6) but less likely in patients with dementia (OR = 0.2; 95% CI = 0.1, 0.9), end-stage medical conditions (OR = 0.4; 95% CI = 0.2, 0.8) or ischaemic stroke (OR = 0.4; 95% CI = 0.1, 0.9). The odds of receiving rehabilitation increased with greater impairment: OR = 3.0 (95% CI = 1.5, 4.9) for mRS 2-3 and OR = 12.5 (95% CI = 6.5, 24.3) for mRS 4-5. Among patients with mild-moderate impairment (mRS 2-3), 39/117 (33%) received no rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: There was significant inter-site variation in rehabilitation selection processes. The major factors influencing rehabilitation access were assessment for rehabilitation needs, co-morbidities and post-stroke functional impairment. Gaps in access to rehabilitation were found in those with mild to moderate functional impairment.
Authors: Angela S Labberton; Mathias Barra; Ole Morten Rønning; Bente Thommessen; Leonid Churilov; Dominique A Cadilhac; Elizabeth A Lynch Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2019-11-21 Impact factor: 2.655