Roderick P, Low J, Day R, Peasgood T, Mullee M A, Turnbull J C, Villar T, Raftery J
Health Care Research Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK.
Age Ageing. 2001 Jul;30(4):303-10. doi: 10.1093/ageing/30.4.303.
To compare the effectiveness and costs of a new domiciliary rehabilitation service for elderly stroke patients with geriatric day-hospital care.
Randomized controlled trial.
Stroke patients aged 55+ who required further rehabilitation after hospital discharge or after referral to geriatricians from the community.
Poole area, East Dorset, a mixed urban/rural area on the south coast of England.
Primary-changes between hospital discharge and 6-month follow-up in physical function as measured by Barthel index. Secondary-changes over 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 social service cost per patient were compared for the two groups.
180 patients were eligible and 140 (78%) were randomized. The groups were well balanced for age, sex, social class and initial Barthel index. We achieved follow-up in 88% of subjects who were alive at 6 months. We detected no significant differences in patient outcomes, although there was a non-significant improvement in measures of physical function and social activity in the domiciliary group. Domiciliary patients had more physiotherapy time per session and more district nurse time, and made greater use of social service day 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.
No significant differences were detected in the effectiveness of 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 community stroke rehabilitation, but this requires further evaluation.
比较针对老年中风患者的新型居家康复服务与老年日间医院护理的效果及成本。
随机对照试验。
年龄在55岁及以上、出院后或从社区转诊至老年科医生处后仍需进一步康复治疗的中风患者。
位于英格兰南海岸的多塞特郡东部普尔地区,城乡混合区域。
主要结局指标为出院时与6个月随访期间用巴氏指数衡量的身体功能变化。次要结局指标为在此期间里弗米德运动指数和精神状态(费城老年中心士气量表)的变化,以及社交活动(弗伦奇活动指数)和总体健康状况(SF - 36)的差异。比较两组患者的医疗服务和社会服务成本。
180名患者符合条件,140名(78%)被随机分组。两组在年龄、性别、社会阶层和初始巴氏指数方面均衡良好。在6个月时存活的受试者中,我们对88%的人进行了随访。我们未发现患者结局有显著差异,尽管居家康复组的身体功能和社交活动指标有不显著的改善。居家康复患者每次接受物理治疗的时间更长,接受地区护士护理的时间更多,且更多地使用了社会服务日间中心和家政服务。两组患者的人均总成本无显著差异,居家康复组医疗服务成本的降低被较高的社会服务成本所抵消。
未发现两种服务在效果上有显著差异。两种服务均未影响患者的精神状态,且他们的社交活动仍然较少。总成本相似。日间医院和居家护理的混合模式可能对社区中风康复最具成本效益,但这需要进一步评估。