Published online before print December 11, 2003, doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000106911.96026.8F
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Stroke. 2004;35:127.)
© 2004 American Heart Association, Inc.
Original Contributions |
Randomized Controlled Trial of an Early Discharge Rehabilitation Service
The Belfast Community Stroke Trial
From the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health (M.D., M.R.), Queen’s University Belfast; the Stroke Unit (M.P.), Ulster Hospital; and the Stroke Unit (K.F.), Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, UK.
Correspondence to Michael Donnelly, PhD, Queen’s University Belfast, Dept of Epidemiology and Public Health, Mulhouse Bldg, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, BT12 6BJ, UK. E-mail m.donnell{at}qub.ac.uk
Background and Purpose— To compare a community-based multidisciplinary stroke team (CST) approach with hospital-based rehabilitation in terms of hospital stay, functioning, quality of life, and service use and costs.
Methods— Stroke patients who met pre-agreed criteria were allocated randomly to the CST service (n=59) or to usual inpatient rehabilitation and follow-up care (n=54). Assessments were completed at randomization and 12 months later. Caregiver strain and satisfaction (n=55) were also assessed. Cost data were collected for a subsample of 38 patients.
Results— Almost 80% of surviving patients (n=691) were discharged home and a small number (n=55) were readmitted. Approximately 17% (113/649) were randomized. There were no statistically significant differences in hospital duration, costs, or outcome measures at baseline and 12 months except for higher satisfaction reported by CST patients. Overall, both groups recorded improvement in most domains over time. Carers reported a high level of satisfaction although the level of strain among carers is cause for concern. The community group (n=18) cost less than the hospital group (n=20).
Conclusions— A mixed model of hospital-based and community-based rehabilitation services is likely to lead to increased patient choice and satisfaction and a potential reduction in bed pressures for less severe stroke patients.
Key Words: evaluation • patient discharge • rehabilitation
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  JianJun Yu, YongShan Hu, Y. Wu, WenHua Chen, YuLian Zhu, Xiao Cui, WeiBo Lu, Qi Qi, PeiYu Qu, and XiaoHua Shen The effects of community-based rehabilitation on stroke patients in China: a single-blind, randomized controlled multicentre trial Clinical Rehabilitation, May 1, 2009; 23(5): 408 - 417. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Luengo-Fernandez, A. M. Gray, and P. M. Rothwell Costs of Stroke Using Patient-Level Data: A Critical Review of the Literature Stroke, February 1, 2009; 40(2): e18 - e23. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Shepperd MSc DPhil, H. Doll MSc DPhil, R. M. Angus MBChB, M. J. Clarke MA DPhil, S. Iliffe BSc MBBS, L. Kalra MD PhD, N. A. Ricauda MD, V. Tibaldi MD PhD, and A. D. Wilson MD Avoiding hospital admission through provision of hospital care at home: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data Can. Med. Assoc. J., January 20, 2009; 180(2): 175 - 182. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Bjorkdahl, A{d.}s. L. Nilsson, G. Grimby, and K. S. Sunnerhagen Does a short period of rehabilitation in the home setting facilitate functioning after stroke? A randomized controlled trial Clinical Rehabilitation, December 1, 2006; 20(12): 1038 - 1049. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. H. Dobkin Rehabilitation after Stroke N. Engl. J. Med., April 21, 2005; 352(16): 1677 - 1684. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Other articles noted: 06 Feb 2004 to 16 Apr 2004 Evid. Based Nurs., July 1, 2004; 7(3): e3 - e3. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|