Clinician adherence to a standardized assessment battery across settings and disciplines in a poststroke rehabilitation population.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To examine clinician adherence to a standardized assessment battery across settings (acute hospital, inpatient rehabilitation facilities [IRFs], outpatient facility), professional disciplines (physical therapy [PT], occupational therapy, speech-language pathology), and time of assessment (admission, discharge/monthly), and (2) to evaluate how specific implementation events affected adherence. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Acute hospital, IRF, and outpatient facility with approximately 118 clinicians (physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists). PARTICIPANTS: Participants (N=2194) with stroke who were admitted to at least 1 of the above settings. All persons with stroke underwent standardized clinical assessments. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence to Brain Recovery Core assessment battery across settings, professional disciplines, and time. Visual inspections of 17 months of time-series data were conducted to see if the events (eg, staff meetings) increased adherence ≥5% and if so, how long the increase lasted. RESULTS: Median adherence ranged from .52 to .88 across all settings and professional disciplines. Both the acute hospital and the IRF had higher adherence than the outpatient setting (P≤.001), with PT having the highest adherence across all 3 disciplines (P<.004). Of the 25 events conducted across the 17-month period to improve adherence, 10 (40%) resulted in a ≥5% increase in adherence the following month, with 6 services (60%) maintaining their increased level of adherence for at least 1 additional month. CONCLUSIONS: Actual adherence to a standardized assessment battery in clinical practice varied across settings, disciplines, and time. Specific events increased adherence 40% of the time with those gains maintained for >1 month 60% of the time.

Prediction of discharge walking ability from initial assessment in a stroke inpatient rehabilitation facility population.

OBJECTIVES: To (1) determine which clinical assessments at admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) most simply predict discharge walking ability, and (2) identify a clinical decision rule to differentiate household versus community ambulators at discharge from an IRF. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: IRF. PARTICIPANTS: Two samples of participants (n=110 and 159) admitted with stroke. INTERVENTIONS: A multiple regression determined which variables obtained at admission (age, time from stroke to assessment, Motricity Index, somatosensation, Modified Ashworth Scale, FIM, Berg Balance Scale, 10-m walk speed) could most simply predict discharge walking ability (10-m walk speed). A logistic regression determined the likelihood of a participant achieving household (<0.4m/s) versus community (≥0.4-0.8m/s; >0.8m/s) ambulation at the time of discharge. Validity of the results was evaluated on a second sample of participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Discharge 10-m walk speed. RESULTS: Admission Berg Balance Scale and FIM walk item scores explained most of the variance in discharge walk speed. The odds ratio of achieving only household ambulation at discharge was 20 (95% confidence interval [CI], 6-63) for sample 1 and 32 (95% CI, 10-96) for sample 2 when the combination of having a Berg Balance Scale score of ≤20 and a FIM walk item score of 1 or 2 was present. CONCLUSIONS: A Berg Balance Scale score of ≤20 and a FIM walk item score of 1 or 2 at admission indicates that a person with stroke is highly likely to only achieve household ambulation speeds at discharge from an IRF.

The brain recovery core: building a system of organized stroke rehabilitation and outcomes assessment across the continuum of care.

This Special Interest article describes a multidisciplinary, interinstitutional effort to build an organized system of stroke rehabilitation and outcomes measurement across the continuum of care. This system is focused on a cohort of patients who are admitted with the diagnosis of stroke to our acute facility, are discharged to inpatient and/or outpatient rehabilitation at our free-standing facility, and are then discharged to the community. This article first briefly explains the justification, goals, and purpose of the Brain Recovery Core system. The next sections describe its development and implementation, with details on the aspects related to physical therapy. The article concludes with an assessment of how the Brain Recovery Core system has changed and improved delivery of rehabilitation services. It is hoped that the contents of this article will be useful in initiating discussions and potentially facilitating similar efforts among other centers.

Descriptive data analysis examining how standardized assessments are used to guide post-acute discharge recommendations for rehabilitation services after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Use of standardized assessments in acute rehabilitation is continuing to grow, a key objective being to assist clinicians in determining services needed postdischarge. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine how standardized assessment scores from initial acute care physical therapist and occupational therapist evaluations contribute to discharge recommendations for poststroke rehabilitation services. DESIGN: A descriptive analysis was conducted. METHODS: A total of 2,738 records of patients admitted to an acute care hospital with a diagnosis of stroke or transient ischemic attack were identified. Participants received an initial physical therapist and occupational therapist evaluation with standardized assessments and a discharge recommendation of home with no services, home with services, inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF), or skilled nursing facility (SNF). A K-means clustering algorithm determined if it was feasible to categorize participants into the 4 groups based on their assessment scores. These results were compared with the physical therapist and occupational therapist discharge recommendations to determine if assessment scores guided postacute care recommendations. RESULTS: Participants could be separated into 4 clusters (A, B, C, and D) based on assessment scores. Cluster A was the least impaired, followed by clusters B, C, and D. In cluster A, 50% of the participants were recommended for discharge to home without services, whereas 1% were recommended for discharge to an SNF. Clusters B, C, and D each had a large proportion of individuals recommended for discharge to an IRF (74%-80%). There was a difference in percentage of recommendations across the clusters that was largely driven by the differences between cluster A and clusters B, C, and D. LIMITATIONS: Additional unknown factors may have influenced the discharge recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Participants poststroke can be classified into meaningful groups based on assessment scores from their initial physical therapist and occupational therapist evaluations. These assessment scores, in part, guide poststroke acute care discharge recommendations.