Krauss Melissa J, Somerville Emily, Poiter Callista, Bollinger Rebecca M, Holden Brianna M, Blenden Gabrielle, Kretzer Danielle, Stark Susan L
Program in Occupational Therapy, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, 4444 Forest Park Ave, Box 8505, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
The Rehabilitation Institute of St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2025 Jan 7;25(1):34. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-12167-6.
Home visits prior to inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) discharge allow occupational therapists to observe functional abilities among patients with stroke and address barriers that impact daily activities at home. However, home visits prior to IRF discharge are not standard practice due to barriers of time and cost constraints. We explored whether an access visit (visiting the home without the patient) could serve as an alternative to a home visit (with the patient) to anticipate functional abilities at home.
We used baseline data from a randomized controlled trial that occurred before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused predischarge home visits to be modified to access visits without the participant. Participants had suffered a stroke and were treated in an IRF, aged ≥ 50, with plans to discharge home. International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) qualifier scores were compared between participants' home/access visits and IRF discharge. ICF scores were compared between predischarge home visits and IRF discharge and between access visits and IRF discharge using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Differences in ICF scores between home/access and IRF discharge were compared between home and access visits using linear regression models.
Among 99 participants (58% men, average 67 years old, 60% Black), 57 received a home visit and 42 received an access visit. Both groups had significantly worse ICF scores at the home/access visit compared to IRF discharge for most activities. Differences in scores between home visit and IRF were significantly greater than between access and IRF for bathing, upper and lower body dressing, bed/chair transfer, walking, and navigating stairs. The largest differences between home and access visits were for walking (β = 1.05 95% CI 0.46 to 1.64) and going up and down stairs (β = 0.87 95% CI 0.25 to 1.49).
Participants with stroke had greater difficulty performing daily activities in both home and access visits than at the IRF, but observed differences were greater for home visits than access visits. While access visits may be beneficial to anticipate functional abilities in the home when home visits cannot occur, visiting the home to directly observe patients' performance is ideal.
Registered on 3/26/2018 at clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03485820.
在住院康复机构(IRF)出院前进行家访,可让职业治疗师观察中风患者的功能能力,并解决影响其在家中日常活动的障碍。然而,由于时间和成本限制等障碍,IRF出院前的家访并非标准做法。我们探讨了一次准入家访(在没有患者在场的情况下访问其家中)是否可以替代有患者在场的家访,以预测患者在家中的功能能力。
我们使用了一项在2019年冠状病毒病大流行之前及期间进行的随机对照试验的基线数据,该疫情导致出院前家访改为在没有参与者在场的情况下进行准入家访。参与者均为中风患者,在IRF接受治疗,年龄≥50岁,计划出院回家。比较了参与者在家访/准入家访时和IRF出院时的国际功能、残疾和健康分类(ICF)限定值分数。使用Wilcoxon符号秩检验比较了出院前家访与IRF出院时以及准入家访与IRF出院时的ICF分数。使用线性回归模型比较了在家访/准入家访与IRF出院之间ICF分数的差异。
在99名参与者(58%为男性,平均年龄67岁,60%为黑人)中,57人接受了家访,42人接受了准入家访。对于大多数活动,与IRF出院时相比,两组在家访/准入家访时的ICF分数均显著更差。在家访与IRF之间的分数差异在洗澡、上身和下身穿衣、从床/椅转移、行走以及上下楼梯方面显著大于准入家访与IRF之间的差异。家访与准入家访之间最大的差异在于行走(β=1.05,95%置信区间0.46至1.64)和上下楼梯(β=0.87,95%置信区间0.25至1.49)。
中风患者在家访和准入家访中进行日常活动比在IRF时更困难,但观察到的家访差异大于准入家访。虽然当无法进行家访时,准入家访可能有助于预测患者在家中的功能能力,但到家中直接观察患者的表现是理想的。
于2018年3月26日在clinicaltrials.gov注册,NCT03485820。