4.2 Article

A Randomized Trial Testing the Superiority of a Postdischarge Care Management Model for Stroke Survivors

Journal

JOURNAL OF STROKE & CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES
Volume 18, Issue 6, Pages 443-452

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2009.02.002

Keywords

Stroke care management; randomized trial

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [UL1 RR025755] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [5 R01 NS041333-02, R01 NS041333-01A1, R01 NS041333] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: We sought to evaluate whether comprehensive postdischarge care management for stroke survivors is superior to organized acute stroke department care with enhanced discharge planning in improving a profile of health and well-being. Methods: This was a randomized trial of a comprehensive postdischarge care management intervention for patients with ischemic stroke and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores greater than or equal to 1 discharged from an acute stroke department. An advanced practice nurse performed an in-home assessment for the intervention group from which an interdisciplinary team developed patient-specific care plans. The advanced practice nurse worked with the primary care physician and patient to implement the plan during the next 6 months. The intervention and usual care groups were compared using a global and closed hypothesis testing strategy. Outcomes fell into 5 domains: (1) neuromotor function, (2) institution time or death, (3) quality of life, (4) management of risk, and (5) stroke knowledge and lifestyle. Results: Treatment effect was near 0 SD for all except the stroke knowledge and lifestyle domain, which showed a significant effect of the intervention (P = .0003). Conclusions: Postdischarge care management was not more effective than organized stroke department care with enhanced discharge planning in most domains in this population. The intervention did, however, fill a postdischarge knowledge gap.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available