PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 20, Issue 8, pp 537–552 | Cite as

Stroke Rehabilitation Services to Accelerate Hospital Discharge and Provide Home-Based Care

An Overview and Cost Analysis
  • Craig Anderson
  • Cliona Ni Mhurchu
  • Paul M. Brown
  • Kristie Carter
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background: Limited information exists on the best way to organise stroke rehabilitation after hospital discharge and the relative costs of such services.

Objective: To review the evidence of the cost effectiveness of services that accelerate hospital discharge and provide home-based rehabilitation for patients with acute stroke.

Methods: A systematic review with economic analysis of published randomised clinical trials (available to March 2001) comparing early hospital discharge and domiciliary rehabilitation with usual care in patients with stroke was conducted. From included studies, data were extracted on study quality; major clinical outcomes including hospital stay, death, institutionalisation, disability, and readmission rates; and resource use associated with hospital stay, rehabilitation, and community services. The resources were priced using Australian dollars ($A) healthcare costs. The outcomes and costs of the new intervention were compared with standard care.

Results: Seven published trials involving 1277 patients (54% men; mean age 73 years) were identified. The pooled data showed that overall, a policy of early hospital discharge and domiciliary rehabilitation reduced total length of stay by 13 days [95% confidence interval (CI): -19 to -7 days]. There was no significant effect on mortality (odds ratio = 0.95; 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.38) or other clinical outcomes making a cost minimisation analysis for the economic analysis appropriate. The overall mean costs were approximately 15% lower for the early discharge intervention [$A16 016 ($US9941) versus $A18 350 ($US11 390)] compared with standard care.

Conclusions: A policy of early hospital discharge and home-based rehabilitation for patients with stroke may reduce the use of hospital beds without compromising clinical outcomes. Our analysis shows this service to be a cost saving alternative to conventional in-hospital stroke rehabilitation for an important subgroup of patients with stroke-related disability.

References

  1. 1.
    Warlow CP, Dennis MS, van Gijn J, et al. Stroke: a practical guide to management. Edinburgh: Blackwell Science, 1996Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jamrozik K, Broadhurst RJ, Lai N, et al. Trends in the incidence, severity and short-term outcome of stroke in Perth, Western Australia. Stroke 1999; 30: 2105–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson CS, Jamrozik KD, Stewart-Wynne EG. Patterns of acute hospital care, rehabilitation, and discharge disposition after acute stroke: the Perth Community Stroke Study 1989–1990. Cerebrovasc Dis 1994; 4: 344–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Isard PA, Forbes JF. The cost of stroke to the National Health Service in Scotland. Cerebrovasc Dis 1992; 2: 47–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aho K, Harmsen P, Hatano S, et al. Cerebrovascular disease in the community: results of a WHO Collaborative Study. Bull World Health Organ 1980; 58: 113–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stroke Unit Trialists’ Collaboration. Collaborative systematic review of the randomised trials of organised in-patient (stroke unit) care after stroke. BMJ 1997; 314: 1151–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Organising Committee. Asia Pacific consensus forumon stroke management. Stroke 1998; 29: 1730–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    European Ad Hoc Consensus Group. European strategies for early intervention in stroke: a report of an ad hoc consensus group meeting. Cerebrovasc Dis 1996; 6: 315–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Young J. Is stroke better managed in the community? BMJ 1994; 309: 1356–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forster A, Young J. Stroke rehabilitation: can we do better? BMJ 1992; 305: 1446–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Early Supported Discharge Trialists. Services for reducing duration of hospital care for acute stroke patients (Cochrane Review). Available in The Cochrane Library [database on disk and CD ROM]. Updated quarterly. The Cochrane Collaboration; issue 3. Oxford: Update Software, 2000Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Beech R, Rudd AG, Tilling K, et al. Economic consequences of early inpatient discharge to community-based rehabilitation for stroke in an inner-London teaching hospital. Stroke 1999; 30: 729–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Anderson C, Ni Mhurchu C, Rubenach S, et al. Home or hospital for stroke rehabilitation? Results of a randomised controlled trial. II: costminimisation analysis at 6 months. Stroke 2000; 31: 1032–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McNamee P, Christensen J, Soutter J, et al. Cost analysis of early supported hospital discharge for stroke. Age Ageing 1998; 27: 345–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Widen Holmqvist L, de Pedro Cuesta J, Moller G, et al. A pilot study of rehabilitation at home after stroke: a health-economic appraisal. Scand J Rehabil Med 1996; 28: 9–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Anderson C, Rubenach S, Ni Mhurchu C, et al. Home or hospital for stroke rehabilitation? Results of a randomised controlled trial. I: health outcomes at 6 months. Stroke 2000; 31: 1024–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Australian Hospital Cost Data Collection, 1998/99. Final report of the development of AR-DRG, version 4.1, August 2000. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au [Accessed 2002 Jun 19]Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Normand ST. Tutorial in biostatistics: meta-analysis: formulating, evaluation, combining, and reporting. Stat Med 1999; 18: 321–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mantel W, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 1959; 22: 710–48Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York (NY): Academic Press, 1985Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2 [computer program]. Seattle (WA): Microsoft Corporation, 1985-1997Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    S-PLUS 2000 [computer program]. Professional release 2. Cambridge (MA): Mathsoft Inc., 1999Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rodgers J, Soutter J, Kaiser W, et al. Early supported hospital discharge following acute stroke: pilot study results. Clin Rehabil 1997; 11: 280–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Widén Holmqvist L, von Koch L, Kostulas V, et al. A randomised controlled trial of rehabilitation at home after stroke in Southwest Stockholm. Stroke 1998; 29: 591–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Côté R, et al. There’s no place like home: an evaluation of early supported discharge for stroke. Stroke 2000; 31: 1016–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rudd AG, Wolfe CD, Tilling K, et al. Randomised controlled trial to evaluate early discharge scheme for patients with stroke. BMJ 1997; 315: 1039–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ronning OM, Guldvog B. Outcome of subacute stroke rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial. Stroke 1998; 29: 779–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Indredravik B, Fjaertoft H, Ekeberg G, et al. Benefit of an extended stroke unit service with early supported discharge: a randomized, controlled trial. Stroke 2000; 31: 2989–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Annual report 1996–1997. Canberra: Australian Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services, 1997Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brandstater ME. An overview of stroke rehabilitation: a review. Stroke 1986; 17: 363–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lafferty G. Community-based alternatives to hospital rehabilitation services: a review of the evidence and suggestions for approaching future evaluations. Rev Clin Gerontol 1996; 6: 183–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gladman JRF, Lincoln NB, for the DOMINO Study Group. Follow-up of a controlled trial of domiciliary stroke rehabilitation (DOMINO Study). Age Ageing 1994; 23: 9–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Young JB, Forster A. The Bradford community stroke trial: results at six months. BMJ 1992; 304: 1085–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Baskett JJ, Broad JB, Reekie G, et al. Shared responsibility for ongoing rehabilitation: a new approach to home-based therapy after stroke. Clin Rehabil 1999; 13: 23–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Craig Anderson
    • 1
  • Cliona Ni Mhurchu
    • 1
  • Paul M. Brown
    • 2
  • Kristie Carter
    • 1
  1. 1.Clinical Trials Research UnitUniversity of Auckland, Faculty of Medicine and Health SciencesAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Community HealthUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations