Subjects: Community rehabilitation teams and the patients treated by them.
Main outcome measures: Annual numbers treated, Barthel Index, mortality, place of discharge, crude costs.
Results: Between mid-1997 and mid-1999, data were collected on 1076 patients who received community-based rehabilitation of whom 48.7% were male. Mean age (SD) was 71 years (13.1); 115 (10.7%) were under 55 years of age and 278 (25.9%) under 65 years of age. Median time between stroke and intervention by the community service was six weeks (25th, 75th percentiles 2.6, 14.4 weeks) and 80.5% had been admitted to hospital. The median Barthel score at the start of community rehabilitation was 15 (11.0, 18.0) and at the end was 18.0 (14.0, 20.0). Median duration of intervention was 12 weeks (6.0, 22.0). At the end of community rehabilitation 912 patients (86.5%) were in the community, 52 (4.9%) had died, 10 (0.9%) were in hospital and 77 (7.3%) in long-term care. Comparative data given here are for one year, 1998, when a total of 519 patients began community rehabilitation. Details of 1855 face-to-face interventions were also recorded from subsets of 10 consecutive patients.
Conclusions: Community rehabilitation teams differed in their target populations, in the timing and duration of intervention. A taxonomy of four types of co-ordinated community-based rehabilitation for people with stroke is proposed: (1) Early-supported discharge rehabilitation aimed to reduce length of hospital stay and offered an alternative to hospital rehabilitation. (2) Post-discharge rehabilitation provided additional rehabilitation and aimed for a seamless transfer of patients from hospital to community. (3) General practitioner-oriented post-stroke rehabilitation provided an alternative to hospital admission and rehabilitation. (4) Late community rehabilitation provided patients with the opportunity of an autonomous service, unconnected with hospital or GP referral. Purchasers need to decide for what purpose a team is to be set up. Researchers need to be similarly aware of diversity in community rehabilitation before comparisons are made.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Lafferty G. Community-based alternatives to hospital rehabilitation services: a review of the evidence and suggestions for approaching future evaluations. Rev Clin Gerontol1996; 6: 183–194.
2.
Cochrane Stroke Group. Services for reducing duration of hospital care for acute stroke patients. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Volume (Issue 1) 2000.
3.
Anderson C, Rubenach S, Mhurchu CN, Clark M, Spencer C, Winsor A. Home or hospital for stroke rehabilitation? Results of a randomized controlled trial: I: health outcomes at 6 months. Stroke2000; 31(5): 1024–1031.
4.
Anderson C, Mhurchu CN, Rubenach S, Clark M, Spencer C, Winsor A. Home or hospital for stroke rehabilitation? Results of a randomized controlled trial: II: cost minimization analysis at 6 months. Stroke2000; 31(5): 1032–1037.
5.
Beech R, Rudd AG, Tilling K, Wolfe CD. Economic consequences of early inpatient discharge to community-based rehabilitation for stroke in an inner-London teaching hospital. Stroke1999; 30(4): 729–735.
6.
Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Cote R et al. There's no place like home: an evaluation of early supported discharge for stroke. Stroke2000; 31(5): 1016–1023.
7.
Jones AL, Charlesworth JF, Hendra TJ. Patient mood and carer strain during stroke rehabilitation in the community following early hospital discharge. Disabil Rehabil2000; 22: 490–494.
8.
Wolfe CDA, Tilling K, Rudd AG. The effectiveness of community-based rehabilitation for stroke patients who remain at home: a pilot randomized trial. Clin Rehabil2000; 14: 563–569.
9.
Iliffe S. Hospital at home: from red to amber?BMJ1998; 316: 1761–1762.
10.
Jones AL, Hendra TJ. Casemix of stroke patients suitable for early community rehabilitation. Age Ageing1997; 26 (suppl 1): 41-41.
11.
Rodgers H, Soutter J, Kaiser W et al. Early supported discharge following acute stroke: pilot study results. Clin Rehabil1997; 11(4): 280–287.
12.
Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J1965; 14: 61–65.
13.
Geddes JML, Chamberlain MA. Setting up a stroke database in a rehabilitation hospital. Proceedings of 4th European Congress on Research in Rehabilitation, July 1992. Clin Rehabil 1992; 6(suppl): 48–49. (European Federation for Research in Rehabilitation abstract 87).
14.
Geddes JML, Chamberlain MA. Improving community rehabilitation teams for people with stroke. Br J Ther Rehabil2001; 8(3): 92–95.
15.
Department of Health. The health of the nation. London: HMSO, 1992.
16.
Department of Health. NHS and Community Care Act. London: HMSO, 1990.
17.
Ronning OM, Gudvog B. Outcome of subacute stroke rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial. Stroke1998; 29(4): 779–784.
18.
Cochrane Stroke Group. Services for helping acute stroke patients avoid hospital admission. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The Cochrane Library, Volume (Issue 1), 2000.
19.
Kalra L, Evans A, Perez I, Knapp M, Donaldson N, Swift CG. Alternative strategies for stroke care: a prospective randomised controlled trial. Lancet2000; 356: 894–899.
20.
Key population and vital statistics. Local and health authority areas. Office for National Statistics Series VS no. 25, PP1 No. 21. London: The Stationery Office, 1998.
21.
Maheswaran R, Davis S. Experience of an open referral system for stroke rehabilitation in the community. Clin Rehabil1998; 12: 265–271.
22.
Baptiste S, Law M, Pollock N, Polatajiko H, McColl MA, Carswell A. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. World Fedn Occup Ther Bull1993; 28: 47–51.
