This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Patel, M. Articles by Kalra, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Patel, M. Articles by Kalra, L.

(Stroke. 1998;29:2484-2487.)
© 1998 American Heart Association, Inc.

Original Contributions

The Process of Rehabilitation and Discharge Planning in Stroke

A Controlled Comparison Between Stroke Units

Mehool Patel, MRCP; Jonathan Potter, DM, FRCP; Inigo Perez, MRCP Lalit Kalra, PhD, MD, FRCP

From Canterbury Stroke Unit, Nunnery Fields Hospital, Canterbury (M.P., J.P.), and Orpington Stroke Unit, Clinical and Health Services Studies Unit, King's College School of Medicine and Dentistry, London (I.P., L.K.), England.

Correspondence to Dr J.M. Potter, Care of the Elderly Department, Nunnery Fields Hospital, Canterbury, Kent CT1 3LP, England.

Background and Purpose—Stroke units improve outcome for stroke patients. Comparative controlled studies between stroke units are required to determine which components of stroke unit rehabilitation influence outcome and which may be investigated further in randomized controlled trials. This study compares 2 stroke units with regard to the effect differences in practice have on functional recovery (Barthel Index score) and discharge planning (length of stay).

Methods—Stroke unit patients with moderate disability (Barthel score of 4 to 10 at week 1) admitted over 18 months were studied. Barthel measurements were obtained weekly from week 1 to discharge. Details of stroke unit function were recorded. The core features of stroke units were in place in both units. Rehabilitation was impairment focused (theoretically driven) on one unit and disability oriented (pragmatic) on the other.

Results—Numbers of patients were comparable (85 versus 99). Median Barthel score at week 1 (6 versus 6), time to maximal Barthel score (14 versus 14 weeks), discharge Barthel score (14 versus 14), and institutionalization (32% versus 28%) were similar in both units. Median lengths of stay differed (68 versus 49 days; P<0.001).

Conclusions—Comparisons with regard to the rehabilitation process can be made between stroke units. Differences in rehabilitation process between 2 units showed no effect on the rate of functional recovery. Length of stay was significantly different between units, an effect that cannot be attributed to functional recovery and therefore reflects differences in discharge planning, including postdischarge support.

Key Words: activities of daily living • outcome • rehabilitation • stroke units

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A Olofsson, S-O Andersson, and B Carlberg 'If only I manage to get home I'll get better'-Interviews with stroke patients after emergency stay in hospital on their experiences and needs Clinical Rehabilitation, April 1, 2005; 19(4): 433 - 440. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R P. Van Peppen, G Kwakkel, S Wood-Dauphinee, H J. Hendriks, P. J Van der Wees, and J Dekker The impact of physical therapy on functional outcomes after stroke: what's the evidence? Clinical Rehabilitation, August 1, 2004; 18(8): 833 - 862. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Sulch, I. Perez, A. Melbourn, and L. Kalra Randomized Controlled Trial of Integrated (Managed) Care Pathway for Stroke Rehabilitation Stroke, August 1, 2000; 31(8): 1929 - 1934. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]