Physical Therapy During Stroke Rehabilitation for People With Different Walking Abilities

Article Outline

• Abstract
• Methods
  • Patients in PT Subset
  • Instrumentation
  • Data Analysis
• Results
  • Frequency of Gait Activity
  • PT Activities and Patient Functional Ability
  • Progression of Plan of Care With Patient Improvement
  • Progression to Community Mobility Activities
  • Outcomes
• Discussion
• Conclusions
• Acknowledgments
• Appendix 1. PT intervention documentation form
• Appendix 2. FIM locomotion item scale
• References
• Copyright

Abstract 

Latham NK, Jette DU, Slavin M, Richards LG, Procino A, Smout RJ, Horn SD. Physical therapy during stroke rehabilitation for people with different walking abilities.

Objective

To describe how physical therapy (PT) activities during poststroke inpatient rehabilitation vary by admission walking ability and over time.

Design

Observational cohort study.

Setting

Six inpatient rehabilitation hospitals in the United States.

Participants

People receiving poststroke PT (N=715) who were classified as walking at admission.

Interventions

Not applicable.

Main Outcome Measures

Percentage of time spent in 11 activities, percentage of patients who participated in each activity, and the FIM instrument scores.

Results

The majority of PT time was spent in gait activities. Even people with the most limited mobility spent 25% to 38% of PT time in gait activities during the first 6-hour treatment block. Treatment progression was evident, and a shift to more advanced activities occurred over time (eg, less bed mobility and more advanced gait). However, even in the final 6-hour block, a small proportion of time was spent on community mobility activities (1.2%–5.2%), and most people received no community mobility training.

Conclusions

PT activities focused on specific functional tasks at the ability level of each individual patient and provided higher-level activities as patients improved their function. However, although there is increasing recognition that the environment influences task performance, little time was spent in community mobility activities before discharge.

Key Words:  Clinical practice patterns , Physical therapy , Rehabilitation , Stroke , Walking

PHYSICAL THERAPY (PT) is a standard part of rehabilitation after a stroke in most countries, with numerous guidelines recommending that all stroke patients receive PT.¹, ² However, the literature contains few studies that describe precise activities that physical therapists provide to people after a stroke. Recent systematic reviews have provided comparisons of different PT approaches to stroke rehabilitation, but the trials included in the reviews rarely provide specific details about all PT activities used throughout the course of rehabilitation.³, ⁴

Some observational studies have explored PT treatment poststroke. A few studies have described how patients spend their time during inpatient stroke rehabilitation, but they have focused more broadly on whether patients were alone or active⁵ or have described PT treatment only in terms of duration or frequency of therapy.⁶, ⁷ Most studies have involved a limited number of patients⁷, ⁸, ⁹ or have asked therapists about treatment choices for hypothetical patients.¹⁰ A recent study by Bode et al¹¹ provides among the most comprehensive assessments to date of the pattern of rehabilitation activities during inpatient stroke rehabilitation. However, this study only reported activities that were classified into 2 general categories: function or impairment activities.¹¹ None of the studies identified examined how specific PT treatments change over time during the course of stroke rehabilitation or by patients’ functional statuses.

Without data to describe reliably poststroke PT activities, it is not known whether current practice follows treatment approaches described in the stroke rehabilitation literature. Many recent review articles, textbooks, and stroke guidelines have emphasized a task-oriented approach to therapy.², ⁴, ¹², ¹³, ¹⁴, ¹⁵, ¹⁶ This approach emphasizes practice of identifiable functional tasks, rather than movement patterns for movement’s sake alone.¹⁶ This approach to training has several key features. Although there is still a need to address the underlying impairments, the main focus of this training is on specific tasks.¹⁵, ¹⁶ When task-specific training is occurring, there should be individualization of the training goals (ie, tasks must be at the appropriate level for a patient’s ability) and progression of the training goals over time (ie, as the patient improves, tasks should become progressively more challenging).¹⁵ Finally, it is well established that the environmental context of the training influences performance of the task. Therefore, to retrain functional adaptation, it is important that activities are carried out in different settings, including in settings that provide environmental challenges that are similar to those that a patient will experience on return to his/her community.¹⁶ By examining PT activities over the duration of rehabilitation and among patients with different abilities to walk, the incorporation of these principles into current practice can be explored.

This work is part of the Post-Stroke Rehabilitation Outcomes Project (PSROP). A detailed literature review substantiating the need to examine rehabilitation processes to improve outcomes for specific types of patients is presented elsewhere.¹⁷ Also described elsewhere is an introduction on where clinical practice improvement methods fit into the pantheon of biomedical and clinical research methodology.¹⁸ This study builds on earlier work that described the overall treatment activities provided by physical therapists for PSROP patients¹⁹ by exploring how these treatments vary over the duration of inpatient rehabilitation and according to the patients’ mobility limitations. We also explored in one example how these data could be used to describe activities associated with mobility outcomes in a very specific and homogeneous group of patients.

Back to Article Outline

Methods 

The methodology governing the full PSROP, provided in this supplement by Gassaway et al,²⁰ provides a detailed description of the larger study’s participating facilities, patient selection criteria, data collection instruments including their validity and reliability, and a detailed description of the project’s final study group. The methodology is summarized in Maulden et al.²¹ The institutional review boards at Boston University and at each participating inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) approved the study.

Patients in PT Subset 

For analyses reported in this article, patients who had fewer than 5 hours of PT during their rehabilitation (n=119) and those who had had more than 30 hours of therapy (n=49) were excluded. These exclusions were made based on our data showing that patients in these groups may have had important differences in illness severity and function from the group receiving 5 to 30 hours of therapy. Additionally, patients were excluded if they were classified as using a wheelchair for locomotion on admission. Data analyses in this article are, therefore, based on 715 patients who received between 5 and 30 hours of PT during their rehabilitation stay and were classified as walking at admission, regardless of the level of independence in walking. Demographic data describing the patients are included in table 1.

Table 1. Patient Characteristics, Processes, and Outcome Variables by Amount of PT Received

PSROP Variable	No. of 6-Hour Blocks of PT
	1 (n=277)	2 (n=233)	3 (n=135)	4 (n=70)
Patient Characteristics
Mean age (y)	67.1	67.7	66.2	61.1
Race (%)
White	57.0	56.2	57.8	58.6
Black	23.8	27.5	30.4	30.0
Other, including Hispanic	19.1	16.3	11.9	11.4
Sex (% men)	48.4	49.4	58.5	51.4
Type of stroke (%)
Hemorrhagic	26.0	20.6	20.0	20.0
Ischemic	74.0	79.4	80.0	80.0
Side of stroke (%)
Left	42.2	41.6	43.0	41.4
Right	43.7	45.5	44.4	47.1
Bilateral	10.8	10.3	9.6	8.6
Unknown	3.2	2.6	3.0	2.9
Mean admission motor FIM score	46.8	39.5	35.7	31.5
Mean admission cognitive FIM score	22.6	21.3	20.5	19.3
Mean days from onset to rehab admission	10.3	14.0	17.6	16.7
Process variables
Mean length of stay	12.2	18.3	24.0	31.4
Mean total minutes of PT	471.0	818.6	1157.0	1518.0
Mean total no. of PT sessions	12.1	22.7	30.5	35.6
Outcome variables
Discharge destination (%)
Home	83.4	80.7	78.5	85.7
Board and care (assisted living)	1.1	4.7	4.4	2.9
Skilled nursing facility	11.2	11.6	14.1	8.6
Acute hospital (own or other facility)	2.9	1.3	2.2	2.9
Other rehabilitation facility	1.4	1.7	0.7	0.0
Mean discharge motor FIM score (95% CI)	68.2(66.5–70.0)	64.2(62.2–66.2)	59.5(57.0–62.0)	58.5(55.4–61.6)
Mean discharge cognitive FIM score (95% CI)	26.1(25.3–27.0)	25.9(25.0–26.8)	25.4(24.2–26.7)	25.4(23.8–27.0)

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; rehab, rehabilitation.

Instrumentation 

The PT intervention documentation form (appendix 1) developed for the PSROP included a taxonomy of information such as targeted activity area, interventions used by the clinician within each activity, and duration of each activity measured in 5-minute increments.²² Definitions for the activities and interventions contained on the PT intervention documentation form were provided to practicing clinicians and are available on request. One PT intervention documentation form was completed for each PT session a patient received during his/her inpatient rehabilitation stay.

A lead physical therapist from each IRF participated in a train-the-trainer teleconference to learn how to use and teach others to use the PT intervention documentation form. After the teleconference, the lead physical therapists trained colleagues in their respective IRFs.

Each site incorporated auditing of intervention documentation form use into routine site practices. Typically, the lead physical therapist observed a patient session and completed a separate intervention documentation form based on what was observed. The therapist providing the session completed a form as per protocol. The lead therapist reviewed and discussed differences in completion with the practicing therapist.

Face validity was built into the intervention documentation forms because they were developed and used by IRF therapists as described above. Predictive validity was assessed by showing significant effects of PT interventions (and other therapy interventions) on outcomes.²³, ²⁴, ²⁵ For example, the amount of variation explained in discharge FIM score, controlling for patient characteristics (including admission FIM score, severity of illness, demographic factors), was 40% for moderate strokes and 45% for severe strokes. When total time per day spent on PT, occupational therapy (OT), and speech-language pathology (SLP) was added, there was no increase in variation explained for discharge FIM, consistent with previous findings by Bode et al.¹¹ However, when time per day spent in specific PT, OT, and SLP activities was added, the amount of variation explained increased to 52% for moderate strokes and 68% for severe strokes, adding 12% to 23% explanation of variation, respectively, in discharge FIM score.

Functional performance for each study patient at admission to and discharge from inpatient rehabilitation was obtained via retrospective chart review using each study site’s reporting of the FIM scores.¹, ²⁶ We assumed all clinicians providing FIM data within IRFs as part of standard practice were FIM credentialed; no additional documentation of FIM elements was performed for project purposes.

Data Analysis 

Patients were categorized by 2 factors, their functional ability at admission to rehabilitation and the duration of their PT treatment. Patients were first classified according to their functional ability based on their admission score on the FIM locomotion item (description in appendix 2). We created 2 functional groups: (1) score of 1 or 2 on the locomotion FIM item (severe limitation in locomotion) and (2) score of 3 or better on the locomotion FIM item (moderate or less limitation in mobility).

Patients were then categorized based on the duration of PT services. Four categories of patients were created: those who received 1, 2, 3, and 4 six-hour blocks of PT across their episode of care. Because data concerning activities were collected across an entire session and because PT sessions differed in length, each 6-hour block of therapy for patients could contain a variable number of sessions. We, therefore, classified patients using the number of full sessions that would bring the therapy hours the closest to 6, 12, 18, or 24 without including the next time block. For example, patients classified as having 1 six-hour block of therapy received between 5 and 11 hours of PT during their rehabilitation stay with an average total time of 471.0 minutes (95% confidence interval, 458.0–483.9). We examined the content of PT sessions, however, for only the first 6 hours.

Descriptive statistics were derived to examine characteristics of patients within each category, as well as characteristics of their episodes of care. The content of treatment sessions was described first by determining the percentage of all PT time within each 6-hour block spent on examination and evaluation. Examination and evaluation time then was subtracted from total therapy time, and percentage of the remaining time spent in each activity was determined.

Finally, we selected a specific subset of patients to explore a method to refine the description of PT sessions and to describe the association between activities and outcome based on the FIM locomotion item. Based on our earlier descriptive data, we selected patients who received 3 six-hour blocks of PT and who had an admission FIM locomotion score of 1 (totally dependent) to create a somewhat homogeneous group of patients. This group of patients was then further stratified according to their discharge scores on the FIM locomotion item: less than 4 or greater than or equal to 4. The PT sessions for these groups of patients were described in terms of the percentage of time spent in each activity during the first 3 hours of therapy. Three hours was chosen for this analysis because we expected only minimal to moderate effects of natural recovery during that time period, and we wished to minimize the effect of improvements in patients’ physical functioning on selection of activities.

Back to Article Outline

Results 

The average percentage of time spent in each activity for patients receiving 1, 2, 3, and 4 six-hour blocks of therapy can be found in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5.

Table 2. Characteristics of PT Sessions for Patients With 1 Six-Hour Block of PT

Activity⁎	% Patients†	Mean % Time‡ (95% CI)
Admission locomotion 1 or 2 (n=174)
Prefunctional	87.9	19.2(17.2–21.2)
Bed mobility	58.0	4.3(3.4–5.2)
Sitting	40.2	3.3(2.4–4.2)
Transfers	86.2	10.5(9.3–11.7)
Sit to stand	75.3	6.8(5.8–7.8)
Wheelchair	40.8	2.1(1.6–2.6)
Pregait	68.4	7.4(6.2–8.6)
Gait	97.7	37.9(35.5–40.3)
Advanced gait	59.2	6.4(5.2–7.7)
Community mobility	17.8	1.9(0.9–2.8)
Using cane	41.4	NA
Using ankle-foot orthosis	14.4	NA
Admission locomotion ≥3 (n=103)
Prefunctional	91.3	21.2(18.4–23.9)
Bed mobility	25.2	1.0(0.6–1.5)
Sitting	22.3	1.3(0.7–1.8)
Transfers	64.1	5.4(4.0–6.8)
Sit to stand	53.4	3.7(2.8–4.7)
Wheelchair	13.6	0.6(0.3–1.0)
Pregait	68.0	8.1(6.2–10.0)
Gait	100.0	42.6(39.6–45.6)
Advanced gait	75.7	11.5(9.2–13.9)
Community mobility	28.2	4.0(2.3–5.6)
Using cane	58.3	NA
Using ankle-foot orthosis	9.7	NA

Abbreviation: NA, not applicable.

Table 3. Characteristics of PT Sessions for Patients With 2 Six-Hour Blocks of PT

Activity⁎	1 Block		2 Blocks
	% Patients†	Mean % Time‡ (95% CI)	% Patients†	Mean % Time‡ (95% CI)
Admission locomotion 1 or 2 (n=202)
Prefunctional	91.1	20.8(18.8–22.8)	93.1	23.4(21.3–25.5)
Bed mobility	58.9	4.2(3.4–4.9)	42.1	2.8(2.1–3.4)
Sitting	42.6	4.2(3.1–5.2)	32.7	3.1(2.1–4.0)
Transfers	86.1	11.8(10.5–13.1)	80.7	8.5(7.3–9.8)
Sit to stand	76.7	7.6(6.6–8.6)	61.4	5.1(4.3–6.0)
Wheelchair	44.6	2.2(1.7–2.7)	32.2	1.5(1.1–2.0)
Pregait	79.7	9.9(8.6–11.2)	72.3	7.0(5.9–8.1)
Gait	95.0	35.9(33.5–38.3)	96.0	38.1(35.6–40.6)
Advanced gait	39.1	2.8(2.1–3.5)	57.9	7.2(6.0–8.4)
Community mobility	6.9	0.5(0.2–0.7)	23.8	2.9(1.8–4.1)
Using cane	56.9	NA	61.4	NA
Using ankle-foot orthosis	29.7	NA	100.0	NA
Admission locomotion ≥3 (n=31)
Prefunctional	90.3	23.0(17.5–28.6)	93.5	27.0(20.4–33.7)
Bed mobility	45.2	3.0(0.8–5.2)	25.8	1.2(0.2–2.2)
Sitting	32.3	1.6(0.4–2.9)	19.4	1.7(−0.1to3.5)
Transfers	77.4	7.0(4.4–9.6)	58.1	4.2(2.4–6.0)
Sit to stand	61.3	4.4(1.9–7.0)	41.9	3.3(1.4–5.2)
Wheelchair	22.6	1.1(0.3–2.0)	12.9	0.9(−0.4to2.1)
Pregait	64.5	7.3(4.2–10.5)	61.3	4.9(2.9–7.0)
Gait	100.0	45.0(38.3–51.7)	100.0	40.8(34.7–46.9)
Advanced gait	67.7	5.9(3.5–8.2)	71.0	10.7(6.8–14.6)
Community mobility	12.9	1.2(−0.2to2.6)	51.6	5.2(2.5–7.9)
Using cane	58.1	NA	48.4	NA
Using ankle-foot orthosis	12.9	NA	100.0	NA

Table 4. Characteristics of PT Sessions for Patients With 3 Six-Hour Blocks of PT

Activity⁎	1 Block		2 Blocks		3 Blocks
	% Patients†	Mean % Time‡ (95% CI)	% Patients†	Mean % Time‡ (95% CI)	% Patients†	Mean % Time‡ (95% CI)
Admission locomotion 1 or 2 (n=123)
Prefunctional	93.5	20.2(17.9–22.5)	92.7	21.5(19.0–24.1)	95.9	25.2(22.3–28.0)
Bed mobility	70.7	5.4(4.2–6.6)	61.8	4.0(3.1–5.0)	50.4	3.0(2.1–4.0)
Sitting	4.0	4.2(2.9–5.6)	48.0	4.3(3.1–6.0)	50.4	3.0(2.1–4.0)
Transfers	95.1	14.1(12.5–15.7)	89.4	13.1(11.3–14.9)	85.4	11.5(9.0–13.9)
Sit to stand	87.0	9.4(8.1–10.7)	87.8	7.5(6.5–8.4)	75.6	5.4(4.2–6.7)
Wheelchair	57.7	3.4(2.6–4.2)	42.3	2.2(1.5–2.9)	31.7	2.0(1.2–2.7)
Pregait	84.6	11.2(9.6–12.8)	82.9	9.6(8.0–11.2)	70.7	6.9(5.7–8.2)
Gait	92.7	29.5(26.6–32.3)	95.1	36.1(33.1–39.1)	96.7	38.3(35.4–41.2)
Advanced gait	17.1	1.1(0.6–1.6)	34.4	2.8(1.9–3.7)	96.7	6.5(5.0–8.0)
Community mobility	6.5	0.6(0.1–1.0)	8.1	0.5(0.2–0.8)	19.5	1.7(0.5–2.9)
Using cane	52.0	NA	65.9	NA	68.3	NA
Using ankle-foot orthosis	43.1	NA	44.7	NA	100.0	NA
Admission locomotion ≥3 (n=12)
Prefunctional	91.7	23.4(14.7–32.1)	91.7	21.1(13.7–28.4)	100.0	31.3(23.4–39.3)
Bed mobility	41.7	0.9(0.1–1.6)	8.3	0.2(−0.3to0.8)	25.0	0.6(−0.2to1.4)
Sitting	41.7	2.9(−1.5to7.3)	8.3	1.0(−1.2to3.2)	25.0	0.8(−0.2to1.9)
Transfers	83.3	6.1(2.9–9.4)	91.7	8.0(3.9–12.1)	83.3	4.2(2.1–6.4)
Sit to stand	58.3	3.8(0.4–7.3)	41.7	2.2(0.4–4.0)	25.0	0.8(−0.3to1.9)
Wheelchair	50.0	2.1(0.4–3.9)	8.3	0.1(−0.1to0.4)	25.0	0.7(−0.2to1.5)
Pregait	83.3	14.3(7.9–20.8)	83.3	6.2(2.5–10.0)	58.3	4.8(0.4–9.2)
Gait	100.0	45.0(34.7–55.3)	100.0	54.3(45.5–63.2)	100.0	45.2(35.1–55.2)
Advanced gait	25.0	1.4(−0.3to3.1)	66.7	5.9(2.0–9.8)	66.7	7.0(2.4–11.5)
Community mobility	0.0	0.0	16.7	0.9(−0.6to2.5)	66.7	4.6(2.0–7.1)
Using cane	50.0	NA	58.3	NA	66.7	NA
Using ankle-foot orthosis	25.0	NA	33.3	NA	100.0	NA

Table 5. Characteristics of PT Sessions for Patients With 4 Six-hour Blocks of PT

Activity⁎	1 Block		2 Blocks		3 Blocks		4 Blocks
	% Patients†	Mean % Time‡ (95% CI)	% Patients†	Mean % Time‡ (95% CI)	% Patients†	Mean % Time‡ (95% CI)	% Patients†	Mean % Time‡ (95% CI)
Admission locomotion score of 1 or 2 (n=70)
Prefunctional	90.0	18.4(15.2–21.7)	84.3	17.1(13.9–20.4)	88.6	18.3(14.7–21.8)	88.6	20.6(17.1–24.0)
Bed mobility	71.4	5.6(4.3–7.0)	57.1	3.7(2.6–4.8)	57.1	3.7(2.4–4.9)	51.4	3.5(2.1–4.8)
Sitting	57.1	6.2(4.1–8.3)	45.7	4.0(2.3–5.7)	37.1	3.1(1.7–4.6)	32.9	2.3(1.3–3.2)
Transfers	94.3	15.2(13.0–17.4)	91.4	12.7(10.6–14.7)	85.7	10.9(8.6–13.1)	87.1	13.2(10.1–16.3)
Sit to stand	87.1	10.2(8.4–11.9)	84.3	8.9(7.1–10.7)	82.9	7.9(6.2–9.6)	77.1	6.4(4.9–7.8)
Wheelchair	58.6	4.7(3.1–6.3)	51.4	4.3(2.8–5.8)	45.7	3.1(2.1–4.2)	41.4	2.2(1.3–3.2)
Pregait	91.4	13.1(10.9–15.4)	87.1	12.7(10.4–15.1)	81.4	11.2(8.7–13.7)	78.6	7.8(5.9–9.7)
Gait	91.4	25.5(22.1–28.9)	95.7	33.4(29.6–37.2)	95.7	35.2(31.2–39.2)	97.1	35.0(31.3–38.8)
Advanced gait	8.6	0.3(0.1–0.6)	32.9	2.3(1.3–3.3)	52.9	4.8(3.0–6.7)	60.0	7.7(5.1–10.3)
Community mobility	2.9	0.1(−0.1to0.3)	7.1	0.5(−0.1to1.1)	15.7	1.6(0.3–3.0)	14.3	1.2(0.4–2.0)
Using cane	60.0	NA	65.7	NA	67.1	NA	68.6	NA
Using ankle-foot orthosis	47.1	NA	44.3	NA	45.7	NA	100.0	NA

Frequency of Gait Activity 

Regardless of the amount of time spent in the rehabilitation setting and the initial level of locomotor function, patients spent most of their time in PT practicing gait. Even during the first 6 hours of PT sessions, patients spent a higher percentage of time in gait than any other activity. That is, approximately 25% to 45% of time was spent in gait activity across groups of patients versus 18% to 20% of time in prefunctional activity (preparation activity related to an upcoming PT activity), the next highest amount of time. During the last 6-hour block of therapy, 96% of patients who began with a FIM locomotion score of 1 or 2 and 100% of patients who began with a FIM locomotion score of 3 or better engaged in gait activity.

PT Activities and Patient Functional Ability 

Physical therapists design plans of care for their patients that are aimed at each patient’s ability level to perform physical activities. Patients whose admission locomotion FIM scores were 1 or 2 spent as much as 5.6% of their session time in bed mobility, 6.2% of time in sitting activities, and 15.2% of time in transfers during the initial 6-hour block, whereas patients with an admission FIM locomotion score of 3 or better spent 3.0% of their time in bed mobility, 2.9% of time in sitting activity, and 7.0% of time in transfer activities. This pattern was seen in higher-level activities as well. Patients with an initial FIM locomotion score of 1 or 2 spent up to 37.9% of session time in gait activities and 6.4% of session time in advanced gait activities during the initial 6-hour block of therapy, whereas patients with an initial FIM locomotion score of 3 or better spent up to 45% of session time in gait activities and 11.5% of session time in advanced gait activities.

Progression of Plan of Care With Patient Improvement 

Physical therapists provide higher-level activities as patients improve in their physical functioning. In patients with more than 1 six-hour block of PT, during the initial 6-hour block of session time patients spent up to 5.6% of their session time in bed mobility and up to 6.2% of their session time in sitting activity. Advanced gait activities comprised up to 5.9% of session time. During the final 6-hour block, when patients might be expected to have improved their physical abilities, patients spent up to 3.5% of their session time in bed mobility and up to 3.1% of their session time in sitting activity. Advanced gait activities comprised up to 10.7% of session time.

Progression to Community Mobility Activities 

Time spent in community mobility increased across the time blocks regardless of the admission locomotion function. The percentage of time spent in community mobility during the final 6-hour block of therapy, however, was not greater than 5.2% for any group of patients, and as few as 14.3% of patients (those with admission FIM locomotion scores of 1 or 2 receiving 4 six-hour blocks of therapy) participated in community mobility activities during the final 6-hour block of therapy sessions.

Outcomes 

Patients who had admission FIM locomotion scores of 1 might be considered to be at similar functional levels in terms of walking ability at admission. Based on the notion that plans of care reflect patients’ ability levels, one might expect sessions to be somewhat similar in content during the first 3 hours of therapy. However, patients who had FIM locomotion scores of 1 at admission and 4 or greater at discharge spent 32.9% of their PT session time in gait during the first 3 hours of therapy, whereas patients with a FIM locomotion score of 1 at admission and a score less than 4 at discharge spent 12.7% of session time in gait activities (table 6). Similarly, patients with locomotion FIM scores of 4 or greater at discharge spent 7.2% of session time in bed mobility, 5.4% of session time in sitting activities, and 13.8% of session time in transfer activities. Patients with discharge FIM locomotion scores of less than 4 spent 8.9% of session time in bed mobility, 8.6% of session time in sitting activities, and 18.2% of session time in transfer activities.

Table 6. Discharge FIM Locomotion Scores and Percentage of Time Spent in Activities During the First 3 Hours of PT for Patients With 3 Six-Hour Blocks of PT and Admission FIM Locomotion Scores of 1 (n=66)

Activity	Discharge FIM Locomotion Item Score
	<4	≥4
Prefunctional, mean % time (95% CI)	17.7(11.2–24.2)	15.4(10.9–19.8)
Bed mobility, mean % time (95% CI)	8.9(3.2–14.6)	7.2(4.3–10.1)
Sitting, mean % time (95% CI)	8.6(2.9–14.3)	5.4(2.1–8.8)
Transfer, mean % time (95% CI)	18.2(14.2–22.2)	13.8(10.9–16.7)
Sit to stand, mean % time (95% CI)	14.5(10.3–18.7)	9.6(6.9–12.2)
Wheelchair, mean % time (95% CI)	5.3(2.1–8.4)	4.0(1.3–6.7)
Pregait, mean % time (95% CI)	11.5(7.4–15.6)	11.1(7.5–14.7)
Gait, mean % time (95% CI)	12.7(7.4–15.6)	32.9(27.3–38.5)
Advanced gait, mean % time (95% CI)	0.0	0.0
Community mobility, mean % time (95% CI)	0.8(−0.4to2.0)	0.0
Using cane (% of patients)	26.9	30.0
Using ankle-foot orthosis (% of patients)	38.5	60.0

Back to Article Outline

Discussion 

Recent guidelines and reviews recommend that task-specific training be used in PT for people poststroke. However, to date, it has not been possible to determine what specific PT treatment approaches are used in stroke rehabilitation and how therapists adapt their treatments. The PSROP provides among the largest and most detailed explorations of PT in stroke rehabilitation. In general, it appears that the characteristics of PT treatments observed in this study are consistent with the use of a task-based approach in several ways that are outlined below. The 1 area of inconsistency with this approach is the lack of attention to the environmental context of training.

One of the most striking findings of this study is the strong focus that physical therapists have on gait training, which is consistent with the widely accepted principle of specificity of training. This principle has been confirmed in other studies, particular in the trial by Kwakkel et al,²⁷ which found that therapy focused on the lower limb resulted in greater improvements in walking ability whereas therapy focused on the upper limb resulted in improved dexterity, and in a recent systematic review of stroke studies.⁶ The current study clearly found that physical therapists spend most of their time on gait retraining. Even among people with the most limited walking ability (ie, admission FIM locomotion score of 1), most were working on gait, and a large proportion of PT time was spent on this activity. The emphasis on gait training also occurs at the very beginning of rehabilitation; this focus is evident in the first treatment block and continues throughout the course of rehabilitation. This finding also is consistent with the work of Bode et al,¹¹ which found that physical therapists spend most of their time on functional rather then impairment-focused activities.

Despite the strong emphasis on gait training, there was also evidence that therapists used an individualized approach to rehabilitation (ie, the tasks were selected at the appropriate level for a patient’s ability). This was seen as patients with higher functional abilities performed more advanced activities, and vice-versa. Again, this finding is consistent with Bode’s recent work,¹¹ which found that physical therapists spent more time on functional activities with less-impaired people. There was also clear evidence that therapists ensured a progression of training (ie, as the patient improves, tasks become progressively more challenging). An increase in advanced activities such as advanced gait and a decrease in lower-level activities such as bed mobility occurred over time.

One finding of concern was that even in the final week of rehabilitation and in higher-functioning patients, only a small proportion of PT time was spent on community mobility. This study found that across all groups, most people are discharged from stroke rehabilitation with no community mobility training. This was a particularly surprising finding because the vast majority (>80%) of patients were discharged directly to their homes after rehabilitation. The small amount of time devoted to community-based training was not expected, given the growing body of research that indicates that the environment influences the difficulty of mobility tasks.²⁸, ²⁹ The findings about the impact of the environment on task difficulty suggest that people need practice in community environments before they can safely and independently function in that setting. The lack of community mobility preparation also ignores expressed priorities of stroke survivors. In a recent survey, community ambulation was considered to be important or essential by 93% of stroke survivors.³⁰

There are many potential reasons why patients might not be receiving community mobility practice. One reason could be the significant reduction in length of stay that has occurred over the past several decades in both acute care and rehabilitation.³¹, ³² It is possible that a result of reduced time in rehabilitation is that therapists focus on achieving basic daily activities but do not have time to train people in more advanced community-based tasks. Another possible contributor to the focus on more basic activities could be the use of the FIM instrument itself. Rehabilitation hospitals use changes in the FIM as quality indicators of success in rehabilitation. However, the FIM was designed to measure only basic activities of daily living and, as such, does not capture patients’ performances in more advanced participation activities.

The lack of community-based preparation before discharge from a rehabilitation hospital places a large burden on home- and outpatient-based services. However, the amount of therapy time that patients receive from these services also is limited and has decreased in recent years.³³ Recent studies found that important declines in function and quality of life occur after discharge from inpatient stroke rehabilitation.³⁴, ³⁵ In particular, Paolucci et al³⁴ found that mobility declined in over 40% of people on their return home. These findings suggest that in the transition from inpatient rehabilitation to home, a significant number of people experience difficulties. It is possible that a lack of community-based practice before discharge could contribute to some of these problems.

Some limitations of this work include the fact that there were no data available for follow-up after discharge. In addition, the only functional outcome measure is the FIM, a measure of basic activities of daily living. However, the aim of this study was to explore functional changes that take place within inpatient rehabilitation, and this study has numerous strengths in this area. This study included a large number of patients from multiple sites that were geographically distributed around the United States. This increases potential accuracy and generalizability of these findings. Another important feature of this study was the creation of a detailed taxonomy of activities and interventions. This allowed us to have a much more precise understanding of the specific therapeutic treatments that patients received throughout their rehabilitation. Finally, this study involved clinicians from the participating centers during all stages of the project. This helped to increase the validity of the study design and integrity of the results.

Additional research questions are worthy of further exploration using this dataset. These include, for example, looking at treatment approaches and functional outcomes of people who used primarily wheelchairs for their locomotion and exploring how particular risk factors associated with poorer functional outcomes after rehabilitation, such as bowel and bladder incontinence or depression, influenced the physical therapists’ selection of therapeutic activities.

Back to Article Outline

Conclusions 

Overall, this study found that people in poststroke rehabilitation are receiving therapy that is generally consistent with a task-based training approach. Physical therapists focus their treatment strongly on the task of gait. Therapists adapt their training for people with more impaired walking ability and as patients progress through the rehabilitation process. However, a small percentage of time during inpatient therapy is spent on advanced mobility activities, and many people do not practice walking in the community with a physical therapist before discharge home. This is a concern, given evidence supporting the influence that the environment has on task difficulty and the challenges that patients face when they return to their homes and communities from an inpatient setting.

Back to Article Outline

Acknowledgments 

We acknowledge the role and contributions of our collaborators at each of the clinical sites represented in the Post-Stroke Rehabilitation Outcomes Project: Brendan Conroy, MD (Stroke Recovery Program, National Rehabilitation Hospital, Washington, DC); Richard Zorowitz, MD (Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA); David Ryser, MD (Rehabilitation Department, LDS Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT); Jeffrey Teraoka, MD (Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA); Frank Wong, MD, and LeeAnn Sims, RN (Rehabilitation Institute of Oregon, Legacy Health Systems, Portland, OR); Murray Brandstater, MD (Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, CA); and Harry McNaughton, MD (Wellington and Kenepuru Hospitals, Wellington, NZ). We also acknowledge the role of Alan Jette, PhD (Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Medical Rehabilitation Outcomes, Boston University, Boston, MA).

Back to Article Outline

Appendix 1. PT intervention documentation form 

©ISIS, 2003. Reprinted with permission.

Abbreviations: FWW, front-wheel walker; KAFO, knee-ankle-foot orthosis; NDT, neurodevelopmental treatment; PNF, proprioceptive neuromuscular fasciculation; PROM, passive range of motion.

Back to Article Outline

Appendix 2. FIM locomotion item scale 

Locomotion/walk: Includes walking, once in a standing position, on a level surface.

Back to Article Outline

References 

1. Gresham GE , Duncan PW , Stason WB , et al.   Post-stroke rehabilitation (Assessment, referral, and patient management) . Clinical practice guideline no. 16 . Rockville: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, US Department of Health and Human Services; 1995; ACHPR Publication No. 95-0663
   • View In Article
2. Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party . National clinical guidelines for stroke . 2nd ed.. London: Royal College of Physicians of London; 2004;
   • View In Article
3. Pollock A , Baer G , Pomeroy V , Langhorne P . Physiotherapy treatment approaches for the recovery of postural control and lower limb function following stroke . Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2003;(2):CD001920
   • View In Article
4. Van Peppen RP , Kwakkel G , Wood-Dauphinee S , Hendriks HJ , Van der Wees PJ , Dekker J . The impact of physical therapy on functional outcomes after stroke (What’s the evidence?) . Clin Rehabil . 2004;18:833–862
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
5. Sulch D , Perez I , Melbourn A , Kalra L . Randomized controlled trial of integrated (managed) care pathway for stroke rehabilitation . Stroke . 2000;31:1929–1934
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
6. Alexander H , Bugge C , Hagen S . What is the association between the different components of stroke rehabilitation and health outcomes? . Clin Rehabil . 2001;15:207–215
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
7. Ballinger C , Ashburn A , Low J , Roderick P . Unpacking the black box of therapy—a pilot study to describe occupational therapy and physiotherapy interventions for people with stroke . Clin Rehabil . 1999;13:301–309
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
8. vanVliet PM , Lincoln NB , Robinson E . Comparison of the content of two physiotherapy approaches for stroke . Clin Rehabil . 2001;15:398–414
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
9. de Weerdt W , Selz B , Nuyens G , et al.   Time use of stroke patients in an intensive rehabilitation unit (a comparison between a Belgian and a Swiss setting) . Disabil Rehabil . 2000;22:181–186
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
10. Carr JH , Mungovan SF , Shepard RB , Dean CM , Nordholm LA . Physiotherapy in stroke rehabilitation (bases for Australian physiotherapists’ choice of treatment) . Physiother Theory Pract . 1994;10:201–209
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
11. Bode RK , Heinemann AW , Semik P , Mallinson T . Patterns of therapy activities across length of stay and impairment levels (peering inside the “black box” of inpatient stroke rehabilitation) . Arch Phys Med Rehabil . 2004;85:1901–1908
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (426 KB)
    • CrossRef
12. Teasell RW , Kalra L . What’s new in stroke rehabilitation . Stroke . 2004;35:383–385
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
13. Wade DT , DeJong BA . Recent advances in rehabilitation . BMJ . 2000;320:1385–1388
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
14. Page SJ . Intensity versus task-specificity after stroke (how important is intensity?) . Am J Phys Med Rehabil . 2003;82:730–732
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
15. Carr J , Shepherd R . Movement science (foundations for physical therapy in rehabilitation) . 2nd ed.. Gaithersburg: Aspen; 2000;
    • View In Article
16. Shumway-Cook A , Woollacott MH . Motor control (theory and practical applications) . 2nd ed.. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2001;
    • View In Article
17. DeJong G , Horn SD , Conroy B , Nichols D , Healton EB . Opening the black box of poststroke rehabilitation (stroke rehabilitation patients, processes, and outcomes) . Arch Phys Med Rehabil . 2005;86(12 Suppl 2):S1–S7
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
18. Horn SD , DeJong G , Ryser DK , Veazie PJ , Teraoka J . Another look at observational studies in rehabilitation research (going beyond the holy grail of the randomized controlled trial) . Arch Phys Med Rehabil . 2005;86(12 Suppl 2):S8–S15
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
19. Jette DU , Latham NK , Smout RJ , Gassaway J , Slavin MD , Horn SD . Physical therapy interventions for patients with stroke in inpatient rehabilitation facilities . Phys Ther . 2005;85:238–248
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
20. Gassaway J , Horn SD , DeJong G , Smout RJ , Clark C , James RA . Applying the clinical practice improvement approach to stroke rehabilitation (methods used and baseline results) . Arch Phys Med Rehabil . 2005;86(12 Suppl 2):S16–S33
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
21. Maulden SA , Gassaway J , Horn SD , Smout RJ , DeJong G . Timing of initiation of rehabilitation after stroke . Arch Phys Med Rehabil . 2005;86(12 Suppl 2):S34–S40
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
22. DeJong G , Horn SD , Gassaway JA , Slavin MD , Dijkers MP . Toward a taxonomy of rehabilitation interventions (using an inductive approach to examine the “black box” of rehabilitation) . Arch Phys Med Rehabil . 2004;85:678–686
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (305 KB)
    • CrossRef
23. Hatfield B , Millet D , Coles J , Gassaway J , Conroy B , Smout RJ . Characterizing speech and language pathology outcomes in stroke rehabilitation . Arch Phys Med Rehabil . 2005;86(12 Suppl 2):S61–S72
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
24. Richards LG , Latham NK , Jette DU , Rosenberg L , Smout RJ , DeJong G . Characterizing occupational therapy practice in stroke rehabilitation . Arch Phys Med Rehabil . 2005;86(12 Suppl 2):S51–S60
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
25. Horn SD , DeJong G , Smout RJ , Gassaway J , James R , Conroy B . Stroke rehabilitation patients, practice, and outcomes (is earlier and more aggressive therapy better?) . Arch Phys Med Rehabil . 2005;86(12 Suppl 2):S101–S114
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
26. Laughlin JA , Granger CV , Hamilton BB . Outcomes measurement in medical rehabilitation . Rehabil Manag . 1992;5:57–58
    • View In Article
27. Kwakkel G , Wagenaar RC , Twisk JW , Lankhorst GJ , Koetsier JC . Intensity of leg and arm training after primary middle-cerebral-artery stroke (a randomized trial) . Lancet . 1999;354:189–194
    • View In Article
28. Shumway-Cook A , Patla AE , Stewart AL , Ferrucci L , Ciol MA , Guralnik JM . Environmental demands associated with community mobility in older adults with and without mobility disabilities . Phys Ther . 2002;82:670–681
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
29. Shumway-Cook A , Patla A , Stewart A , Ferrucci L , Ciol MA , Guralnik JM . Environmental components of mobility disability in community-living older persons . J Am Geriatr Soc . 2003;51:393–398
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
30. Lord SE , McPherson K , McNaughton HK , Rochester L , Weatherall M . Community ambulation after stroke (how important and obtainable is it and what makes measures appear predictive?) . Arch Phys Med Rehabil . 2004;85:234–239
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (113 KB)
    • CrossRef
31. Chan L , Koepsell TD , Deyo RA , et al.   The effect of Medicare’s payment system for rehabilitation hospitals on length of stay, charges, and total payments . New Engl J Med . 1997;337:978–985
    • View In Article
32. Baker DW , Einstadter D , Husak SS , Cebul RD . Trends in post discharge mortality and admissions . Arch Intern Med . 2004;164:538–544
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
33. Murkofsky RL , Phillips RS , McCarthy EP , Davis RB , Hamel MB . Length of stay in home care before and after the 1997 Balanced Budget Act . JAMA . 2003;289:2841–2848
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
34. Paolucci S , Grasso MG , Antonucci G , et al.   Mobility status after inpatient stroke rehabilitation (1-year follow-up and prognostic factors) . Arch Phys Med Rehabil . 2001;82:2–8
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (66 KB)
    • CrossRef
35. Hopman WM , Verner J . Quality of life during and after inpatient stroke rehabilitation . Stroke . 2002;34:801–805
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef