Volume 86, Issue 12, Supplement , Pages 16-33, December 2005
Applying the Clinical Practice Improvement Approach to Stroke Rehabilitation: Methods Used and Baseline Results
Abstract
Gassaway J, Horn SD, DeJong G, Smout RJ, Clark C, James R. Applying the clinical practice improvement approach to stroke rehabilitation: methods used and baseline results.
Objectives
To describe the methods used and baseline data for the Post-Stroke Rehabilitation Outcomes Project (PSROP).
Design
Prospective observational cohort study.
Setting
Seven inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) in the United States and New Zealand.
Participants
Consecutive convenience sample of 1291 poststroke rehabilitation patients, age older than 18, who were treated between 2001 and 2003 in 7 IRFs (1161 patients in 6 U.S. IRFs).
Interventions
Not applicable.
Main Outcome Measures
Change in FIM score, change in severity of illness, and discharge destination.
Results
For the U.S. sample, the average age was 66 years, 52% were men, 60% were white, and 23% were black. Medicare was the most frequent payer. Seventy-seven percent of strokes were ischemic, with 43% in the left brain, 44% in the right brain, and 11% bilateral. Mean admission total FIM score was 61, with a mean motor FIM score of 40 and mean cognitive FIM score of 21. Lower FIM scores are associated with higher severity-of-illness scores. Mean rehabilitation length of stay was 18.6 days; 78% of patients were discharged home. At discharge, the average increase in total FIM score was 26, in motor FIM score was 22, and in cognitive FIM score was 4.
Conclusions
This article outlines methods used in the PSROP, provides an overview of participating IRFs, describes the database, and summarizes key characteristics to enable readers of subsequent articles to better interpret study findings and determine generalizability.
Key Words: Outcome assessment (health care) , Rehabilitation , Severity of illness index , Stroke
Supported by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (grant no. H133B990005) and the U.S. Army and Materiel Command (cooperative agreement award no. DAMD17-02-2-0032). The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this article are those of the author(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy, or decision unless so designated by other documentation.No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the author(s) or upon any organization with which the author(s) is/are associated.
PII: S0003-9993(05)01147-0
doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2005.08.114
© 2005 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Volume 86, Issue 12, Supplement , Pages 16-33, December 2005
