School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Room HSc3N25, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.
Health Research Methods, Department of Health, Evidence and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, and the Centre of Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, HSC 2C, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.
BMC Geriatr. 2023 Oct 24;23(1):687. doi: 10.1186/s12877-023-04403-1.
This study aimed to test, in real-world clinical practice, the effectiveness of a Transitional Care Stroke Intervention (TCSI) compared to usual care on health outcomes, self-management, patient experience, and health and social service use costs in older adults (≥ 55 years) with stroke and multimorbidity (≥ 2 chronic conditions).
This pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) included older adults discharged from hospital to community with stroke and multimorbidity using outpatient stroke rehabilitation services in two communities in Ontario, Canada. Participants were randomized 1:1 to usual care (control group) or usual care plus the 6-month TCSI (intervention group). The TCSI was delivered virtually by an interprofessional (IP) team, and included care coordination/system navigation support, phone/video visits, monthly IP team conferences, and an online resource to support system navigation. The primary outcome was risk of hospital readmission (all cause) after six-months. Secondary outcomes included physical and mental functioning, stroke self-management, patient experience, and health and social service use costs. The intention-to-treat principle was used to conduct the primary and secondary analyses.
Ninety participants were enrolled (44 intervention, 46 control); 11 (12%) participants were lost to follow-up, leaving 79 (39 intervention, 40 control). No significant between-group differences were seen for baseline to six-month risk of hospital readmission. Differences favouring the intervention group were seen in the following secondary outcomes: physical functioning (SF-12 PCS mean difference: 5.10; 95% CI: 1.58-8.62, p = 0.005), stroke self-management (Southampton Stroke Self-Management Questionnaire mean difference: 6.00; 95% CI: 0.51-11.50, p = 0.03), and patient experience (Person-Centred Coordinated Care Experiences Questionnaire mean difference: 2.64, 95% CI: 0.81, 4.47, p = 0.005). No between-group differences were found in total healthcare costs or other secondary outcomes.
Although participation in the TCSI did not impact hospital readmissions, there were improvements in physical functioning, stroke self-management and patient experience in older adults with stroke and multimorbidity without increasing total healthcare costs. Challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, including the shift from in-person to virtual delivery, and re-deployment of interventionists could have influenced the results. A larger pragmatic RCT is needed to determine intervention effectiveness in diverse geographic settings and ethno-cultural populations and examine intervention scalability.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04278794 . Registered May 2, 2020.
本研究旨在真实临床环境中测试过渡性护理卒中干预(TCSI)与常规护理相比在健康结果、自我管理、患者体验以及老年人(≥55 岁)卒中合并多种合并症(≥2 种慢性疾病)的健康和社会服务使用成本方面的有效性。
本实用随机对照试验(RCT)纳入了 2 个安大略省社区中使用门诊卒中康复服务出院到社区的伴有卒中合并多种合并症的老年人。参与者以 1:1 的比例随机分为常规护理(对照组)或常规护理加 6 个月 TCSI(干预组)。TCSI 由跨专业(IP)团队通过虚拟方式提供,包括护理协调/系统导航支持、电话/视频访问、每月 IP 团队会议以及支持系统导航的在线资源。主要结局是 6 个月后的住院再入院(所有原因)风险。次要结局包括身体和精神功能、卒中自我管理、患者体验和健康及社会服务使用成本。采用意向治疗原则进行主要和次要分析。
共纳入 90 名参与者(44 名干预组,46 名对照组);11 名(12%)参与者失访,79 名(39 名干预组,40 名对照组)完成研究。两组间基线至 6 个月的住院再入院风险无显著差异。干预组在以下次要结局方面表现出有利差异:身体功能(SF-12 PCS 平均差异:5.10;95%CI:1.58-8.62,p=0.005)、卒中自我管理(南安普顿卒中自我管理问卷平均差异:6.00;95%CI:0.51-11.50,p=0.03)和患者体验(以人为本的协调护理体验问卷平均差异:2.64,95%CI:0.81,4.47,p=0.005)。两组间总医疗保健成本或其他次要结局无差异。
尽管参与 TCSI 并未影响住院再入院率,但在伴有多种合并症的老年卒中患者中,TCSI 可改善身体功能、卒中自我管理和患者体验,而不会增加总医疗保健成本。与 COVID-19 大流行相关的挑战,包括从面对面到虚拟交付的转变以及干预人员的重新部署,可能影响了结果。需要一项更大规模的实用 RCT 来确定干预措施在不同地理环境和种族文化人群中的有效性,并检验干预措施的可扩展性。
ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT04278794。2020 年 5 月 2 日注册。