P. Roderick et al., Stroke rehabilitation after hospital discharge: a randomized trial comparing domiciliary and day-hospital care, AGE AGEING, 30(4), 2001, pp. 303-310
Objectives: to compare the effectiveness and costs of a new domiciliary reh
abilitation service for elderly stroke patients with geriatric day-hospital
care.
Design: randomized controlled trial.
Participants: stroke patients aged 55 + who required further rehabilitation
after hospital discharge or after referral to geriatricians from the commu
nity.
Setting: Poole area, East Dorset, a mixed urban/rural area on the south coa
st of England.
Main outcomes: primary-changes between hospital discharge and 6-month follo
w-up in physical function as measured by Barthel index. Secondary-changes o
ver this period in Rivermead Mobility Index and mental state (Philadelphia
Geriatric Centre Morale Scale) and differences in social activity (Frenchay
Activities Index) and generic health status (SF-36). Health service and so
cial service cost per patient were compared for the two groups.
Results: 180 patients were eligible and 140 (78%) were randomized. The grou
ps were well balanced for age, sex, social class and initial Barthel index.
We achieved follow-up in of subjects,who were alive at 6 months. We detect
ed no significant differences in patient outcomes, although there was a non
-significant improvement in measures of physical function and social activi
ty in the domiciliary group. Domiciliary patients had more physiotherapy ti
me per session and more district nurse time, and made greater use of social
service da, centres and home helps. Total cost per patient did not differ
significantly between the two groups, with reduced health service costs in
the domiciliary arm offset by higher social service costs.
Conclusion: no significant differences were detected in the effectiveness o
f the two services. Neither service influenced patients' mental state, and
their social activity remained low. Total costs were similar. A mixed model
of day-hospital and domiciliary care may be most cost-effective for commun
ity stroke rehabilitation, but this requires further evaluation.