Richard D. Zorowitz

Management of Adult Stroke Rehabilitation Care A Clinical Practice Guideline

Stroke is a leading cause of disability in the United States.1 The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) estimates that 15 000 veterans are hospitalized for stroke each year (VA HSR&D, 1997). Forty percent of stroke patients are left with moderate functional impairments and 15% to 30% with severe disability.2 Effective rehabilitation interventions initiated early after stroke can enhance the recovery process and minimize functional disability. Improved functional outcomes for patients also contribute to patient satisfaction and reduce potential costly long-term care expenditures. There are only 45 rehabilitation bed units (RBUs) in the VA today. Many veterans who have a stroke and are admitted to a VA Medical Center will find themselves in a facility that does not offer comprehensive, integrated, multidisciplinary care. In a VA rehabilitation field survey published in December 2000, more than half of the respondents reported that the “rehabilitative care of stroke patients was incomplete, fragmented, and not well coordinated” at sites lacking a RBU (VA Stroke Medical Rehabilitation Questionnaire Results, 2000). In Department of Defense (DoD) medical treatment facilities, approximately 20 000 active-duty personnel and dependents were seen in 2002 for stroke and stroke-related diagnoses according to ICD-9 coding.3 Comprehensive treatment for stroke patients in DoD medical facilities is given primarily at medical centers. Smaller DoD community hospitals may have limited resources to see both inpatients and outpatients, relying more on the TRICARE network for ongoing stroke rehabilitation services. A growing body of evidence indicates that patients do better with a well-organized, multidisciplinary approach to post-acute rehabilitation after a stroke.4–6 The VA/DoD Stroke Rehabilitation Working Group only focused on the post–acute stroke rehabilitation care. Duncan and colleagues7 found that greater adherence to post-acute stroke rehabilitation guidelines was associated with improved patient outcomes and concluded “compliance …

Recommendations for Comprehensive Stroke Centers: A Consensus Statement From the Brain Attack Coalition

Background and Purpose— To develop recommendations for the establishment of comprehensive stroke centers capable of delivering the full spectrum of care to seriously ill patients with stroke and cerebrovascular disease. Recommendations were developed by members of the Brain Attack Coalition (BAC), which is a multidisciplinary group of members from major professional organizations involved with the care of patients with stroke and cerebrovascular disease. Summary of Review— A comprehensive literature search was conducted from 1966 through December 2004 using Medline and Pub Med. Articles with information about clinical trials, meta-analyses, care guidelines, scientific guidelines, and other relevant clinical and research reports were examined and graded using established evidence-based medicine approaches for therapeutic and diagnostic modalities. Evidence was also obtained from a questionnaire survey sent to leaders in cerebrovascular disease. Members of BAC reviewed literature related to their field and graded the scientific evidence on the various diagnostic and treatment modalities for stroke. Input was obtained from the organizations represented by BAC. BAC met on several occasions to review each specific recommendation and reach a consensus about its importance in light of other medical, logistical, and financial factors. Conclusions— There are a number of key areas supported by evidence-based medicine that are important for a comprehensive stroke center and its ability to deliver the wide variety of specialized care needed by patients with serious cerebrovascular disease. These areas include: (1) health care personnel with specific expertise in a number of disciplines, including neurosurgery and vascular neurology; (2) advanced neuroimaging capabilities such as MRI and various types of cerebral angiography; (3) surgical and endovascular techniques, including clipping and coiling of intracranial aneurysms, carotid endarterectomy, and intra-arterial thrombolytic therapy; and (4) other specific infrastructure and programmatic elements such as an intensive care unit and a stroke registry. Integration of these elements into a coordinated hospital-based program or system is likely to improve outcomes of patients with strokes and complex cerebrovascular disease who require the services of a comprehensive stroke center.

Recommendations for the Establishment of Stroke Systems of Care Recommendations From the American Stroke Association’s Task Force on the Development of Stroke Systems

Stroke continues to be a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Approximately 700 000 Americans have a new or recurrent stroke each year, and stroke remains the third leading cause of death in the United States when considered independently from other cardiovascular diseases. Stroke also remains a leading cause of serious, long-term disability in the United States.1 Major advances have been made during the past several decades in stroke prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation. Despite successes in delivering effective new therapies, significant obstacles remain in ensuring that scientific advances are consistently translated into clinical practice. In many instances, these obstacles can be related to a fragmentation of stroke-related care caused by inadequate integration of the various facilities, agencies, and professionals that should closely collaborate in providing stroke care. There is increased emphasis on improving the components of stroke care, including recommendations from the Brain Attack Coalition for primary stroke centers and a formal process provided through the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) for the certification of primary stroke centers.2–4 It is critically important to look carefully at how the distinct components can be better integrated into systems of stroke care. The American Stroke Association (ASA), a division of the American Heart Association (AHA), is dedicated to improving stroke prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation through research, education, advocacy, and the development and application of scientifically based standards and guidelines. The ASA convened a multidisciplinary group, the Task Force on the Development of Stroke Systems, to describe the current fragmentation of stroke care, to define the key components of a stroke system, and to recommend methods for encouraging the implementation of stroke systems. The term “stroke system” is used in this article to avoid the corporate and financial connotations associated with the words “network” and …

Comprehensive Overview of Nursing and Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation Care of the Stroke Patient: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

In the United States, the incidence rate of new or recurrent stroke is approximately 795 000 per year, and stroke prevalence for individuals over the age of 20 years is estimated at 6.5 million.1 Mortality rates in the first 30 days after stroke have decreased because of advances in emergency medicine and acute stroke care. In addition, there is strong evidence that organized postacute, inpatient stroke care delivered within the first 4 weeks by an interdisciplinary healthcare team results in an absolute reduction in the number of deaths.2,3 Despite these positive achievements, stroke continues to represent the leading cause of long-term disability in Americans: An estimated 50 million stroke survivors worldwide currently cope with significant physical, cognitive, and emotional deficits, and 25% to 74% of these survivors require some assistance or are fully dependent on caregivers for activities of daily living (ADLs).4,5 Notwithstanding the substantial progress in acute stroke care over the past 15 years, the focus of stroke medical advances and healthcare resources has been on acute and subacute recovery phases, which has resulted in substantial health disparities in later phases of stroke care. Additionally, healthcare providers (HCPs) are often unaware of not only patients’ potential for improvement during more chronic recovery phases but also common issues that stroke survivors and their caregivers experience. Furthermore, even with evidence that documents neuroplasticity potential regardless of age and time after stroke,6 the mean lifetime cost of ischemic stroke (which accounts for 87% of all strokes) in the United States is an estimated

Guidelines for Adult Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

140 000 (for inpatient, rehabilitation, and follow-up costs), with 70% of first-year stroke costs attributed to acute inpatient hospital care1; therefore, fewer financial resources appear to be dedicated to providing optimal care during the later phases of stroke recovery. Because there remains a …

Metrics for Measuring Quality of Care in Comprehensive Stroke Centers: Detailed Follow-Up to Brain Attack Coalition Comprehensive Stroke Center Recommendations A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

Purpose— The aim of this guideline is to provide a synopsis of best clinical practices in the rehabilitative care of adults recovering from stroke. Methods— Writing group members were nominated by the committee chair on the basis of their previous work in relevant topic areas and were approved by the American Heart Association (AHA) Stroke Council’s Scientific Statement Oversight Committee and the AHA’s Manuscript Oversight Committee. The panel reviewed relevant articles on adults using computerized searches of the medical literature through 2014. The evidence is organized within the context of the AHA framework and is classified according to the joint AHA/American College of Cardiology and supplementary AHA methods of classifying the level of certainty and the class and level of evidence. The document underwent extensive AHA internal and external peer review, Stroke Council Leadership review, and Scientific Statements Oversight Committee review before consideration and approval by the AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee. Results— Stroke rehabilitation requires a sustained and coordinated effort from a large team, including the patient and his or her goals, family and friends, other caregivers (eg, personal care attendants), physicians, nurses, physical and occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, recreation therapists, psychologists, nutritionists, social workers, and others. Communication and coordination among these team members are paramount in maximizing the effectiveness and efficiency of rehabilitation and underlie this entire guideline. Without communication and coordination, isolated efforts to rehabilitate the stroke survivor are unlikely to achieve their full potential. Conclusions— As systems of care evolve in response to healthcare reform efforts, postacute care and rehabilitation are often considered a costly area of care to be trimmed but without recognition of their clinical impact and ability to reduce the risk of downstream medical morbidity resulting from immobility, depression, loss of autonomy, and reduced functional independence. The provision of comprehensive rehabilitation programs with adequate resources, dose, and duration is an essential aspect of stroke care and should be a priority in these redesign efforts. (Stroke.2016;47:e98-e169. DOI: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000098.)

Palliative and End-of-Life Care in Stroke: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

Background— Stroke is a major cause of disability and death. The Brain Attack Coalition has proposed establishment of primary and comprehensive stroke centers to provide appropriate care to stroke patients who require basic and more advanced interventions, respectively. Primary stroke centers have been designated by The Joint Commission since 2003, as well as by various states. The designation of comprehensive stroke centers (CSCs) is now being considered. To assist in this process, we propose a set of metrics and related data that CSCs should track to monitor the quality of care that they provide and to facilitate quality improvement. Methods and Results— We analyzed available guideline statements, reviews, and other literature to identify the major features that distinguish CSCs from primary stroke centers, drafted a set of metrics and related data elements to measure the key components of these aspects of stroke care, and then revised these through an iterative process to reach a consensus. We propose a set of metrics and related data elements that cover the major aspects of specialized care for patients with ischemic cerebrovascular disease and nontraumatic subarachnoid and intracerebral hemorrhages at CSCs. Conclusions— The metrics that we propose are intended to provide a framework for standardized data collection at CSCs to facilitate local quality improvement efforts and to allow for analysis of pooled data from different CSCs that may lead to development of national performance standards for CSCs in the future.

Admission motor impairment as a predictor of physical disability after stroke rehabilitation.

Background and Purpose— The purpose of this statement is to delineate basic expectations regarding primary palliative care competencies and skills to be considered, learned, and practiced by providers and healthcare services across hospitals and community settings when caring for patients and families with stroke. Methods— Members of the writing group were appointed by the American Heart Association Stroke Council’s Scientific Statement Oversight Committee and the American Heart Association’s Manuscript Oversight Committee. Members were chosen to reflect the diversity and expertise of professional roles in delivering optimal palliative care. Writing group members were assigned topics relevant to their areas of expertise, reviewed the appropriate literature, and drafted manuscript content and recommendations in accordance with the American Heart Association’s framework for defining classes and level of evidence and recommendations. Results— The palliative care needs of patients with serious or life-threatening stroke and their families are enormous: complex decision making, aligning treatment with goals, and symptom control. Primary palliative care should be available to all patients with serious or life-threatening stroke and their families throughout the entire course of illness. To optimally deliver primary palliative care, stroke systems of care and provider teams should (1) promote and practice patient- and family-centered care; (2) effectively estimate prognosis; (3) develop appropriate goals of care; (4) be familiar with the evidence for common stroke decisions with end-of-life implications; (5) assess and effectively manage emerging stroke symptoms; (6) possess experience with palliative treatments at the end of life; (7) assist with care coordination, including referral to a palliative care specialist or hospice if necessary; (8) provide the patient and family the opportunity for personal growth and make bereavement resources available if death is anticipated; and (9) actively participate in continuous quality improvement and research. Conclusions— Addressing the palliative care needs of patients and families throughout the course of illness can complement existing practices and improve the quality of life of stroke patients, their families, and their care providers. There is an urgent need for further research in this area.

Poststroke spasticity Sequelae and burden on stroke survivors and caregivers

The purpose of this study is to investigate the Fugl-Meyer Motor Impairment Scale and physical disability as measured by the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) as predictors of physical independence after stroke inpatient rehabilitation. Forty-eight patients admitted to a rehabilitation hospital within 6 wk of their first unifocal stroke were prospectively studied. Upper and lower extremity Fugl-Meyer scores were obtained near rehabilitation admission. FIMs were obtained on admission and discharge. Discharge FIM self-care was predicted best by admission FIM total (rs=0.75; P < 0.0001), although admission FIM self-care, other FIM components, and upper- and lower-extremity Fugl-Meyer scores were also good predictors. Discharge FIM mobility and locomotion correlated well with their admission counterparts (rs=0.54 and 0.45; P<.001 and <.01, respectively) but were even more strongly related to admission Fugl-Meyer scores (rs=0.63 and 0.74, respectively; P<0.0001). As expected, cognitive and psychosocial components of the FIM at discharge correlated poorly with admission Fugl-Meyer. These data confirm the strong motor impairment basis for the physical disability subdimensions of the FIM and suggest that dependency in physical activities of daily living after stroke is primarily determined by degree of motor impairment.

Intramuscular electrical stimulation for hemiplegic shoulder pain: a 12-month follow-up of a multiple-center, randomized clinical trial.

Among the estimated 20% to 40% of stroke survivors who develop spasticity, the burden of this condition on patients, caregivers, and society is substantial. Stroke survivors with spasticity may experience reductions in their ability to perform activities of daily living and in their health-related quality of life. The occurrence of spasticity in stroke survivors may also result in an increased burden on their caregivers, who exhibit poorer physical and emotional health as compared with the general population. The responsibilities that caregivers have to the stroke survivor—in terms of providing medical care, protecting from falls, and assisting with feeding and hygiene, among other tasks of daily living—must be balanced with their responsibilities to other family members and to themselves. Caregivers of stroke survivors often report a feeling of confinement with little opportunity for relief, and although social support can be helpful, it is frequently limited in its availability. In terms of the socioeconomic burden of spasticity after stroke, recent data point to a 4-fold increase in health care costs associated with stroke survivors with spasticity compared with stroke survivors without spasticity. Thus, it is important to reduce the burden of spasticity after stroke. Consequently, effective spasticity treatment that reduces spasticity and the level of disability experienced by stroke survivors will likely increase their functioning and their health-related quality of life and will also result in a diminished burden on their caregivers.