Can readmission after stroke be prevented? Results of a randomized clinical study: a postdischarge follow-up service for stroke survivors
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Can readmission after stroke be prevented? Results of a randomized clinical study: a postdischarge follow-up service for stroke survivors. / Andersen, H E; Schultz-Larsen, K; Kreiner, S; Forchhammer, B H; Eriksen, K; Brown, A.
In: Stroke, Vol. 31, No. 5, 2000, p. 1038-45.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Can readmission after stroke be prevented? Results of a randomized clinical study: a postdischarge follow-up service for stroke survivors
AU - Andersen, H E
AU - Schultz-Larsen, K
AU - Kreiner, S
AU - Forchhammer, B H
AU - Eriksen, K
AU - Brown, A
N1 - Keywords: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Readmission; Stroke; Survival Analysis
PY - 2000
Y1 - 2000
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 10797163
VL - 31
SP - 1038
EP - 1045
JO - Stroke
JF - Stroke
SN - 0039-2499
IS - 5
ER -
ID: 8876515