BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare a community-based multidisciplinary @entity64 team (CST) approach with hospital-based rehabilitation in terms of hospital stay, functioning, quality of life, and service use and costs. METHODS: @entity64 @entity1 who met pre-agreed criteria were allocated randomly to the CST service (n=59) or to usual inpatient rehabilitation and follow-up care (n=54). Assessments were completed at randomization and 12 months later. Caregiver strain and satisfaction (n=55) were also assessed. Cost data were collected for a subsample of 38 @entity1 . RESULTS: Almost 80% of surviving @entity1 (n=691) were discharged home and a small number (n=55) were readmitted. Approximately 17% (113/649) were randomized. There were no statistically significant differences in hospital duration, costs, or outcome measures at baseline and 12 months except for higher satisfaction reported by CST @entity1 . Overall, both groups recorded improvement in most domains over time. Carers reported a high level of satisfaction although the level of strain among carers is cause for concern. The community group (n=18) cost less than the hospital group (n=20). CONCLUSIONS: A mixed model of hospital-based and community-based rehabilitation services is likely to lead to increased @entity1 choice and satisfaction and a potential reduction in bed pressures for less severe @entity64 @entity1 .

Randomized controlled trial of an early discharge rehabilitation service: the Belfast XXXX Trial.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients', 'patient'] @entity64 :: ('MESH:D020521', 'Disease') :: ['stroke', 'Stroke']
@entity64 :: (MESH:D020521,Disease) :: ['Community Stroke']
