Objective: To examine whether additional therapy provided by nurses at the weekend improved the physical outcome for people with stroke on a stroke rehabilitation unit.
Design: A single blind randomized controlled trial.
Setting: A 16-bed stroke rehabilitation unit in the north of England.
Subjects: Forty-one people with stroke were randomized by means of minimization to intervention and control groups.
Interventions: The intervention group received additional exercise at the weekend provided by the nursing staff and the control group received their usual care. Both groups received usual care during weekdays.
Main outcome measures: The Motor Assessment Scale (MAS), the Barthel Index (BI) and length of stay in hospital.
Results: No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of MAS and BI at discharge but there was a borderline significant difference between the groups on unconditional testing in terms of length of stay in hospital and on the stroke unit (p = 0.05 and p = 0.07 respectively). However, these findings were in favour of the control group. On conditional testing (adjusting for BI on admission and age) these differences disappeared (p = 0.14 and p = 0.15) for length of stay in hospital and on the stroke unit respectively.
Conclusions: The present study indicates that an increase in one-to-one input by nurses for people with stroke did not lead to a measurable difference in outcome in this small study.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1 Kwakkel G, Wagenaar RC, Koelman TW, Lankhorst GJ, Koetsier JC. Effects of intensity of rehabilitation after stroke. A research synthesis. Stroke1997; 28: 1550–1556.
2.
2 Kwakkel G, Wagenaar RC, Twisk JW, Lankhorst GJ, Koetsier JC. Intensity of leg and arm training after primary middle-cerebral-artery stroke: a randomised trial. Lancet1999; 354: 191–196.
3.
3 Lincoln NB, Parry RH, Vass CD. Randomized, controlled trial to evaluate increased intensity of physiotherapy treatment of arm function after stroke. Stroke1999; 30: 573–579.
4.
4 Sivenius J, Pyorala K, Olli P, Jukka T, Tiekkinen P. The significance of intensity of rehabilitation of stroke – a controlled trial. Stroke1985; 16: 928–931.
5.
5 Indredavik B, Slordahl SA, Bakke F, Rokseth R, Haheim LL. Stroke unit treatment. Long-term effects. Stroke1997; 28: 1861–1866.
6.
6 Indredavik B, Bakke F, Slordahl SA, Rokseth R, Haheim LL. Stroke unit treatment improves longterm quality of life: a randomized controlled trial. Stroke1998; 29: 895–899.
7.
7 Langhorne P, Williams B, Gilchrist W, Howie K. Do stroke units save lives?Lancet1993; 342: 395–398.
8.
8 Stroke Unit Trialists' Collaboration. How do stroke units improve patient outcomes? A collaborative systematic review of the randomized trials. Stroke1997; 28: 2139–2144.
9.
9 Stroke Unit Trialists' Collaboration. Organised inpatient (stroke unit) care for stroke (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library. Oxford: Update Software, 2002.
10.
10 Indredavik B, Slordahl SA, Bakke F, Rokseth R, Haheim LL. Stroke unit treatment. Long-term effects. Stroke1997; 28: 1861–1866.
11.
11 Indredavik B, Bakke F, Slordahl SA, Rokseth R, Haheim LL. Stroke unit treatment improves long-term quality of life: a randomized controlled trial. Stroke1998; 29: 895–899.
12.
12 Indredavik B, Bakke F, Slordahl SA, Rokseth R, Haheim LL. Stroke unit treatment. 10-year follow-up. Stroke1999; 30: 1524–1527.
13.
13 Stroke Unit Trialists' Collaboration. Collaborative systematic review of the randomised trials of organised inpatient (stroke unit) care after stroke. BMJ1997; 314: 1151–1159.
14.
14 Indredavik B, Baake F, Slordahl S, Rokseth R, Haheim L. Treatment in a combined acute and rehabilitation stroke unit: which aspects are most important?Stroke1999; 30: 917–923.
15.
15 Booth J. The effect of an education programme on stroke rehabilitation practice. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Manchester, 1999.
16.
16 Forster A, Dowswell G, Young J, Bagley P, Sheard J, Wright P. Effect of a physiotherapist-led training programme on attitudes of nurses caring for patients after stroke. Clin Rehabil1999; 13: 113–122.
17.
17 Forster A, Dowswell G, Young J, Sheard J, Wright P, Bagley P. Effect of a physiotherapist-led stroke training programme for nurses. Age Ageing1999; 28: 567–574.
18.
18 Gibbon B, Little V. Improving stroke care through action research. J Clin Nurs1995; 4:93–100.
19.
19 Hamrin E. Early Activation in Stroke: Does it make a Difference?Scand J Rehabil Med1982; 14: 101–109.
20.
20 Jones A, Carr EK, Newham DJ, Wilson BJ. Positioning of stroke patients: evaluation of a teaching intervention with nurses. Stroke1998; 29: 1612–1617.
21.
21 Gibbon B. Implications for nurses in approaches to the management of stroke rehabilitation: a review of the literature. Int J Nurs Stud1993; 30: 133–141.
22.
22 Johnson J. Achieving effective rehabilitation outcomes: does the nurse have a role?Br J Ther Rehabil1995; 2: 113–118.
23.
23 Myco F. Stroke and its rehabilitation: the preceived role of the nurse in medical and nursing literature. J Adv Nurs1984; 9: 429–439.
24.
24 O'Connor S. Mode of care delivery in stroke rehabilitation nursing; a development of Kirkevold's Unified Theoretical Perspective of the role of the nurse. Clin Effect Nurs2000; 4: 180–188.
25.
25 Waters KR, Luker KA. Staff perspectives on the role of the nurse in rehabilitation wards for elderly people. J Clin Nurs1996; 5: 105–114.
26.
26 Kirkevold M. The role of nursing in the rehabilitation of acute stroke patients: Toward a unified theoretical perspective. Adv Nurs Sci1997; 19: 55–64.
27.
27 Grove E. The Casson Memorial Lecture: Working Together. Br J Occup Ther1988; 51: 150–156.
28.
28 Rapoport J, Judd Van Eerd M. Impact of physical therapy weekend coverage on length of stay in an acute care community hospital. Phys Ther1989; 69: 32–37.
29.
29 Ruff RM, Yarnell S, Marinos JM. Are stroke patients discharged sooner if in-patient rehabilitation services are provided seven v six days per week?Am J Phys Med Rehabil1999; 78: 143–146.
30.
30 Edwards S. Neurological physiotherapy: a problem solving approach. London: Churchill Livingstone, 1996.
31.
31 Pocock S. Clincial trials: a practical approach. Chichester: Wiley, 1983.
32.
32 Taves D. Minimization: a new method of assigning patients to treatment and control groups. Clin Pharm Ther1974; 15: 443–453.
33.
33 Treasure T, MacRae KD. Minimisation: the platinum standard for trials?: Randomisation doesn't guarantee similarity of groups; minimisation does. BMJ1998; 317: 362–363.
34.
34 Evans S, Day S. MINIM: Minimisation program for allocating patients to treatments in clinical trials. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, The London Medical College, 1995.
35.
35 Carr JH, Shepherd RB, Nordholm L, Lynne D. Investigation of a new motor assessment scale for stroke patients. Phys Ther1985; 65: 175–180.
36.
36 Collin C, Wade D, Davies S, Horne V. The Barthel ADL index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud1988; 10: 61–63.
37.
37 Zigmond A, Snaith R. The Hospital Anxienty and Depression scale. Acta Psychol Scand1983; 67: 361–370.
38.
38 Matthews J, Altman D, Campbell MJ, Royston P. Analysis of serial measurements in medical research. BMJ1990; 300: 230–235.
39.
39 Senn S. Testing for baseline balance in clinical trials. Stat Med1994; 13: 1715–1726.
40.
40 Langhammer B, Stanghelle J. Bobath or Motor Relearning Programme? A comparison of two different approaches of physiotherapy in stroke rehabilitation: a randomized controlled study. Clin Rehabil2000; 14: 361–369.
41.
41 Keith R. Treatment strength in rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1997; 78: 1298–1304.
42.
42 Kwakkel G, Wagenaar RC, Koelman TW, Lankhorst GJ, Koetsier JC. Effects of intensity of rehabilitation after stroke. A research synthesis. Stroke1997; 28: 1550–1556.
43.
43 Shah S. In praise of the biometric and psychometric qualities of the barthel index. Physiotherapy1994; 80: 769–771.
44.
44 Wade D. Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
45.
45 Lennon S. Using standardised scales to document outcome in stroke rehabilitation. Physiotherapy1995; 81: 200–202.
46.
46 Poole J, Whitney S. Motor Assessment Scale for stroke patients: concurrent validity and interrater reliability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1988; 69: 195–197.
47.
47 Loewen SC, Anderson BA. Predictors of stroke outcome using objective measurement scales. Stroke1990; 21:78–81.
48.
48 Loewen SC, Anderson BA. Reliability of the modified motor assessment scale and the Barthel index. Phys Ther1988; 68: 1077–1081.
49.
49 Merbitz C, Morris J, Grip J. Ordinal scales and foundations of misinference. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1989; 70: 308–312.
50.
50 Testa M. The nature of outcome assessment in speech-language pathology. J Allied Health1995; 24: 41–55.
51.
51 Andrews K. The limitations of randomized controlled trials in rehabilitation research. Clin Rehabil1991; 5: 5–8.
52.
52 Deyo R, Nicolas E, Schoenfeld L, Somayaji R. Can trials of physical treatments be blinded?Am J Phys Med Rehabil1990; 69: 6–10.
53.
53 Roberts C. The implications of variation in outcome between health professionals for the design and analysis of randomized controlled trials. Stat Med1999; 18: 2605–2615.
54.
54 Day S, Altman D. Blinding in clinical trials and other studies. BMJ2000; 321: 504–504.
55.
55 Stroke Unit Trialists' Collaboration. How do stroke units improve patient outcomes? A collaborative systematic review of the randomized trials. Stroke1997; 28: 2139–2144.
56.
56 Mawson SJ. TELER normal movement indicators: catalogue of TELER normal movement indicators for use in physiotherapy for neurologically impaired patients. Sheffield: TELER, 1995.
