Ideal timing to transfer from an acute care hospital to an interdisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation program following a stroke: an exploratory study

BACKGROUND: Timely accessibility to organized inpatient stroke rehabilitation services may become compromised since the demand for rehabilitation services following stroke is rapidly growing with no promise of additional resources. This often leads to prolonged lengths of stays in acute care facilities for individuals surviving a stroke. It is believed that this delay spent in acute care facilities may inhibit the crucial motor recovery process taking place shortly after a stroke. It is important to document the ideal timing to initiate intensive inpatient stroke rehabilitation after the neurological event. Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine the specific influence of short, moderate and long onset-admission intervals (OAI) on rehabilitation outcomes across homogeneous subgroups of patients who were admitted to a standardized interdisciplinary inpatient stroke rehabilitation program. METHODS: A total of 418 patients discharged from the inpatient neurological rehabilitation program at the Montreal Rehabilitation Hospital Network after a first stroke (79% of all cases reviewed) were included in this retrospective study. After conducting a matching procedure across these patients based on the degree of disability, gender, and age, a total of 40 homogeneous triads (n = 120) were formed according to the three OAI subgroups: short (less than 20 days), moderate (between 20 and 40 days) or long (over 40 days; maximum of 70 days) OAI subgroups. The rehabilitation outcomes (admission and discharge Functional Independence Measure scores (FIM), absolute and relative FIM gain scores, rehabilitation length of stay, efficiency scores) were evaluated to test for differences between the three OAI subgroups. RESULTS: Analysis revealed that the three OAI subgroups were comparable for all rehabilitation outcomes studied. No statistical difference was found for admission (P = 0.305–0.972) and discharge (P = 0.083–0.367) FIM scores, absolute (P = 0.533–0.647) and relative (P = 0.496–0.812) FIM gain scores, rehabilitation length of stay (P = 0.096), and efficiency scores (P = 0.103–0.674). CONCLUSION: OAI does not seem to affect significantly inpatient stroke rehabilitation outcomes of patients referred from acute care facilities where rehabilitation services are rapidly initiated after the onset of the stroke and offered throughout their stay. However, other studies considering factors such as the type and intensity of the rehabilitation are required to support those results

Assessment of the upper limb in acute stroke: the validity of hierarchal scoring for the Motor Assessment Scale

Background/aim: Stroke is the greatest contributor to disability in Australian adults and much of this disability results from a stroke-affected upper limb. This study aimed to determine the validity of hierarchal scoring for the upper limb subscale of the Motor Assessment Scale (UL-MAS) in acute stroke using Rasch analysis. Method: This study applied Rasch analysis to 40 UL-MAS assessment results across 25 subjects to determine the validity of the hierarchy of the three upper limb subsets: upper arm function (six), hand movements (seven) and advanced hand activities (eight). Rasch analysis examines the relationship between ‘item difficulty’ and ‘person ability’ and produces an output which represents the difficulty of each item in relation to each other. Results: As hypothesised, the hierarchy was upheld within subset 6. In subset 7, the hierarchy was not upheld. Results indicated that item 3 was the least difficult, followed by items 1, 4, 2, 5 and 6 in order of increasing difficulty. In subset 8 the hierarchy was not upheld. Results indicated that item 1 was the least difficult, followed by item 6, then 2 and 5 of equal value and then 3 and 4 of equal value. Conclusions: The hierarchal scoring is not supported for subsets 7 and 8 and future research is required to explore the validity of alternate scoring methods. At present, the authors recommend that the UL-MAS should be scored non-hierarchally, meaning that every item within the subsets should be scored regardless of its place within the hierarchy (UL-MAS-NH)