Timely access to inpatient rehabilitation after stroke: a qualitative study of perceived barriers and potential solutions in Ontario, Canada.

PURPOSE: Stroke units have been established as best practice care, in part because they offer timely initiation of rehabilitation. Experts in Ontario, Canada recommend that eligible patients be transferred to inpatient rehabilitation (on average) by day 5 after ischemic stroke and day 7 after a hemorrhagic stroke. This study explores perceived barriers to implementation of these recommendations and potential solutions. METHOD: Exploratory focus groups were held with stakeholders from five geographically diverse regions across Ontario between September 2011 and January 2012. Participants were asked to consider the recommendations, list perceived barriers and to collectively discuss potential solutions. Data analysis included coding of transcribed data, sorting material to identify themes and confronting themes with a formalized body of knowledge. RESULTS: Barriers identified by participants fell into three categories: patient-centered, clinician-focused and resource or system based, within these, specific challenges included managing patients' medical and emotional readiness for rehabilitation, timely completion of medical tests, staff comfort in discharging patients, dedicated transportation and funding-related concerns. CONCLUSIONS: The structure of Ontario's health care system presents challenges to early transfer of stroke patients to inpatient rehabilitation, yet the stakeholders consulted in this study felt that these could be addressed with proper planning, improved coordination and targeted investment. Implications for rehabilitation Stroke units are a well-established best practice in stroke care and timely access to rehabilitation is a key component of their effectiveness. Stroke experts in Ontario, Canada recommend transfer of suitable patients to inpatient rehabilitation on day 5 and day 7, on average, after ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, respectively. Stakeholders report that meeting these targets may require some adjustments to local processes of care, many of which can be achieved with little to no financial investment.

Inpatient stroke rehabilitation in Ontario: are dedicated units better?

BACKGROUND: The superiority of dedicated stroke rehabilitation over generalized rehabilitation services has been suggested by the literature; however, these models of service delivery have not been evaluated in terms of their relative effectiveness in situ. AIMS: A comparison of the process indicators associated with these two models of service provision was undertaken within the Ontario healthcare system. METHODS: All adults admitted with a diagnosis of stroke for inpatient rehabilitation in Ontario, Canada during the years 2006-2008 were identified from the National Rehabilitation Reporting System database. Each of the admitting institutions was classified as providing rehabilitation services on either a stroke dedicated or nondedicated unit. A dedicated unit was identified by the presence of a collection of geographically distinct, stroke-dedicated beds and dedicated therapists. Selected process indicators from the National Rehabilitation Reporting System database were compared between the two facility types. RESULTS: Sixty-seven facilities provided stroke rehabilitation services to 6709 adult stroke patients during the years 2006-2008. Of the total number of patients who entered inpatient rehabilitation, 1725 (25·7%) received care in eight facilities that met basic criteria for a dedicated stroke rehabilitation unit. On average, these patients took significantly longer to arrive for inpatient rehabilitation (37·2 ± 155·5 vs. 22·8 ± 95·0 days, P < 0·001), were admitted with higher Functional Independence Measure scores (77·5 ± 22·5 vs. 74·8 ± 24·5, P < 0·001), had significantly longer lengths of stay (42·1 ± 25·9 vs. 35·4 ± 27·2 days, P < 0·001), and demonstrated significantly lower Functional Independence Measure efficiency scores (0·62 ± 0·47 vs. 0·88 ± 1·03, P > 0·001) compared with patients who were admitted to nondedicated units. The proportion of patients admitted to a dedicated unit and subsequently discharged home was similar to that of patients discharged from nondedicated units (70·5% vs. 68·8%, P = 0·206). CONCLUSIONS: In Ontario, patients admitted to dedicated stroke rehabilitation units fared no better on commonly-used process metrics compared with patients admitted to nondedicated rehabilitation units.

Determining the need for in-patient rehabilitation services post-stroke: results from eight ontario hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The number of patients requiring in-patient rehabilitation services following acute stroke is unknown. METHODS: All consecutive patients admitted with a diagnosis of stroke to eight community hospitals in southwestern Ontario from May 2008 to December 2009 were screened for in-patient rehabilitation eligibility using the Stroke Rehabilitation Candidacy Screening Tool. RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-six patients were included, of which 147 (37.1%) were identified as candidates for in-patient rehabilitation. Of these patients, 111 (75%) were discharged to an in-patient rehabilitation unit. The most frequently documented reason that candidates were not transferred was lack of an available bed (n=19). Two hundred forty-nine (62.9%) patients were not considered candidates. The majority (80%) of these patients had experienced either mildly or severely disabling stroke and went home or directly to long-term care upon discharge. CONCLUSION: The reported estimate of 37% who required in-patient rehabilitation services is important for the purposes of planning and allocation of healthcare resources.

CONTEXTE : On ne connaît pas bien le nombre de patients qui ont besoin de services de réadaptation après un accident cérébrovasculaire aigu. MÉTHODE : Tous les patients admis suite à un diagnostic d'accident cérébrovasculaire dans huit hôpitaux communautaires du sud-ouest ontarien entre mai 2008 et décembre 2009 ont été soumis au protocole de dépistage pour les candidats à la réadaptation après un accident cérébrovasculaire (Stroke Rehabilitation Candidacy Screening Tool). RÉSULTATS : Trois cent quatre-vingt-seize patients ont été considérés. Parmi eux, 147 (37,1 %) ont été désignés comme candidats à la réadaptation. De ces patients, 111 (75 %) ont été dirigés vers une unité de réadaptation pour patients hospitalisés. La raison la plus évoquée pour ne pas y diriger un patient était le manque de lits disponibles (n=19). Deux cent quarante-neuf (62,9 %) patients n'ont pas été désignés candidats. La majorité (80 %) de ces patients avaient subit un accident cérébrovasculaire causant une invalidité de moyenne à sévère et ont reçu leur congé ou sont allés directement aux soins de longue durée. CONCLUSION : La proportion estimée de 37 pour cent des patients ayant besoin de services de réadaptation pour patients hospitalisés est importante pour la panification et la répartition des ressources en santé.

Recovery of standing balance and functional mobility after stroke.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the extent to which recovery of functional balance and mobility is accompanied by change in a few specific physiologic measures of postural control. DESIGN: Longitudinal prospective study. SETTING: Laboratory setting in Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven volunteers (age, 64.2+/-13.7y) undergoing 4 weeks of rehabilitation after stroke participated. At initial testing, patients were 32.7+/-18.4 days poststroke and exhibited a moderate level of motor recovery (lower-extremity and postural control, stages 3-4 on the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment Impairment Inventory). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Three functional measures (Berg Balance Scale, Clinical Outcome Variables Scale, gait speed) were assessed. Three physiologic measures (electromyographic data of hamstrings and soleus muscles bilaterally, postural sway, arm acceleration) were taken while subjects stood quietly on a force platform and while they performed a rapid shoulder flexion movement of the nonparetic upper extremity. RESULTS: After 1 month of rehabilitation, there was an overall significant improvement in all outcome measures (functional, physiologic). However, 10 patients failed to show any improvement in the electromyographic activation of hamstrings muscle on the paretic side in response to the rapid arm movement. These patients compensated by increasing the anticipatory activation of the nonparetic hamstrings. CONCLUSION: After stroke, patients showed improvement in both physiologic and functional measures of balance and mobility over a 1-month period. We have identified some patients who may be using compensatory strategies to increase function. The factors that may predict those patients who are likely to use compensatory strategies awaits further study.