So you're trying to normalize and justify your failure to get survivors 100% recovered. 100% recovery and return to work is normal. Why the fuck aren't you doing the research to get survivors there?
Laziness? Incompetence? Or just don't care? No leadership? No strategy? Not my job?
This is useless. I'd fire you all.
Factors Predicting Return to Work After Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation: A
Retrospective Follow-up Study
Original Research
Factors Predicting Return to Work After
Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation: A
Retrospective Follow-up Study
San San Tay, MBBS, MRCP, MMed a ,
Christine Alejandro Visperas, MD a , Mark M.J. Tan, MD a ,
Tricia L.T. Chew, MBBS b
, Xuan Han Koh, MPH a
a Changi General Hospital, Singapore
b Internal Medicine, Singhealth Residency, Singapore
Factors Predicting Return to Work After
Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation: A
Retrospective Follow-up Study
San San Tay, MBBS, MRCP, MMed a ,
Christine Alejandro Visperas, MD a , Mark M.J. Tan, MD a ,
Tricia L.T. Chew, MBBS b
, Xuan Han Koh, MPH a
a Changi General Hospital, Singapore
b Internal Medicine, Singhealth Residency, Singapore
Abstract
Objective:
To determine the proportion of patients who return to work after inpatient
stroke rehabilitation and to identify demographic, clinical, and functional predictive factors for
its success.
Design:
stroke rehabilitation and to identify demographic, clinical, and functional predictive factors for
its success.
Design:
A retrospective follow-up study of patients with stroke who were premorbidly working
and had completed inpatient rehabilitation in a large metropolitan hospital between January
2016 and December 2017. They underwent a telephone interview at 2 years post discharge.
Setting: Inpatient rehabilitation and follow-up post discharge.
Participants: A total of 314 patients with stroke (73.9% male) with mean age of 58.9 at time of
stroke (N=314).
Results:
and had completed inpatient rehabilitation in a large metropolitan hospital between January
2016 and December 2017. They underwent a telephone interview at 2 years post discharge.
Setting: Inpatient rehabilitation and follow-up post discharge.
Participants: A total of 314 patients with stroke (73.9% male) with mean age of 58.9 at time of
stroke (N=314).
Results:
A total of 46% of 314 participants returned to work. In multivariable logistic regres-
sion analysis, viewing return to work as important (odds ratio [OR], 11.90; 95% confidence
interval [CI], 5.15-27.52), absence of language impairment (OR, 9.39; 95% CI, 3.01-29.34),
ambulation FIM≥5 (supervision to independence level) on discharge (OR, 4.93; 95% CI, 2.44-
9.98), cognitive FIM on discharge ≥25 (OR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.19-6.47), employment in premor-
bid office work (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.26-5.64), and a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)
score at discharge (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.00) were associated with successful return to
work.
Conclusions:
sion analysis, viewing return to work as important (odds ratio [OR], 11.90; 95% confidence
interval [CI], 5.15-27.52), absence of language impairment (OR, 9.39; 95% CI, 3.01-29.34),
ambulation FIM≥5 (supervision to independence level) on discharge (OR, 4.93; 95% CI, 2.44-
9.98), cognitive FIM on discharge ≥25 (OR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.19-6.47), employment in premor-
bid office work (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.26-5.64), and a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)
score at discharge (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.00) were associated with successful return to
work.
Conclusions:
Viewing return to work as important, absence of language impairments on dis-
charge, discharge ambulation FIM≥5, discharge cognitive FIM≥25, employment in premorbid office work, and a lower discharge CCI score were positive predictors of successful return to
work.
charge, discharge ambulation FIM≥5, discharge cognitive FIM≥25, employment in premorbid office work, and a lower discharge CCI score were positive predictors of successful return to
work.
No comments:
Post a Comment