4.5 Article

SELECTION FOR INPATIENT REHABILITATION AFTER SEVERE STROKE: WHAT FACTORS INFLUENCE REHABILITATION ASSESSOR DECISION-MAKING?

期刊

JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE
卷 45, 期 1, 页码 24-31

出版社

FOUNDATION REHABILITATION INFORMATION
DOI: 10.2340/16501977-1065

关键词

stroke; rehabilitation; patient selection; health services accessibility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: This study aimed to identify factors that assessors considered important in decision-making regarding suitability for inpatient rehabilitation after acute severe stroke. Design: Multi-site prospective observational cohort study. Subjects: Consecutive acute, severe stroke patients and their assessors for inpatient rehabilitation. Methods: Rehabilitation assessors completed a questionnaire, rating the importance (10 point visual analogue scale) and direction (positive, negative or neutral) of 15 patient related and 2 organisational items potentially affecting their decision regarding patients' acceptance to rehabilitation. Results: Of the 75 patients referred to rehabilitation and included in this study 61 (81.3%) were accepted for inpatient rehabilitation. The items considered to be most important in the decision to accept the patient for rehabilitation were pre-morbid cognition, pre-morbid mobility and pre-morbid communication. For those not accepted the most important items were current mobility, social support and current cognition. Factor analysis revealed 3 underlying factors, interpreted as post-stroke status, pre-morbid status, and social attributes, accounting for 61.8% of the total variance. All were independently associated with acceptance for rehabilitation (p<0.05). Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of pre-morbid function and social factors in addition to post-stroke function in the decision making process for acceptance to rehabilitation following severe stroke. Future models for selection for rehabilitation should consider inclusion of these factors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据