Author
Listed:
- Laura M Pérez
- Marco Inzitari
- Terence J Quinn
- Joan Montaner
- Ricard Gavaldà
- Esther Duarte
- Laura Coll-Planas
- Mercè Cerdà
- Sebastià Santaeugenia
- Conxita Closa
- Miquel Gallofré
Abstract
Background: Stroke is a major cause of disability in older adults, but the evidence around post-acute treatment is limited and heterogeneous. We aimed to identify profiles of older adult stroke survivors admitted to intermediate care geriatric rehabilitation units. Methods: We performed a cohort study, enrolling stroke survivors aged 65 years or older, admitted to 9 intermediate care units in Catalonia-Spain. To identify potential profiles, we included age, caregiver presence, comorbidity, pre-stroke and post-stroke disability, cognitive impairment and stroke severity in a cluster analysis. We also proposed a practical decision tree for patient’s classification in clinical practice. We analyzed differences between profiles in functional improvement (Barthel index), relative functional gain (Montebello index), length of hospital stay (LOS), rehabilitation efficiency (functional improvement by LOS), and new institutionalization using multivariable regression models (for continuous and dichotomous outcomes). Results: Among 384 patients (79.1±7.9 years, 50.8% women), we identified 3 complexity profiles: a) Lower Complexity with Caregiver (LCC), b) Moderate Complexity without Caregiver (MCN), and c) Higher Complexity with Caregiver (HCC). The decision tree showed high agreement with cluster analysis (96.6%). Using either linear (continuous outcomes) or logistic regression, both LCC and MCN, compared to HCC, showed statistically significant higher chances of functional improvement (OR = 4.68, 95%CI = 2.54–8.63 and OR = 3.0, 95%CI = 1.52–5.87, respectively, for Barthel index improvement ≥20), relative functional gain (OR = 4.41, 95%CI = 1.81–10.75 and OR = 3.45, 95%CI = 1.31–9.04, respectively, for top Vs lower tertiles), and rehabilitation efficiency (OR = 7.88, 95%CI = 3.65–17.03 and OR = 3.87, 95%CI = 1.69–8.89, respectively, for top Vs lower tertiles). In relation to LOS, MCN cluster had lower chance of shorter LOS than LCC (OR = 0.41, 95%CI = 0.23–0.75) and HCC (OR = 0.37, 95%CI = 0.19–0.73), for LOS lower Vs higher tertiles. Conclusion: Our data suggest that post-stroke rehabilitation profiles could be identified using routine assessment tools and showed differential recovery. If confirmed, these findings might help to develop tailored interventions to optimize recovery of older stroke patients.
Suggested Citation
Laura M Pérez & Marco Inzitari & Terence J Quinn & Joan Montaner & Ricard Gavaldà & Esther Duarte & Laura Coll-Planas & Mercè Cerdà & Sebastià Santaeugenia & Conxita Closa & Miquel Gallofré, 2016.
"Rehabilitation Profiles of Older Adult Stroke Survivors Admitted to Intermediate Care Units: A Multi-Centre Study,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-13, November.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0166304
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166304
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0166304. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.