Stroke Patient Post-discharge Follow-up During the War Time

Research Objectives: To determine if patients have received rehabilitation services. To determine if patients have attended a follow-up appointment with their primary healthcare physician.

Design: A survey/Data Collection Form was created. The form was used to assess patient perception of the importance of rehabilitation and the clinical pathway at 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge from the acute neurological department. Feasibility was assessed from the perspective of "Is the patient receiving the rehabilitation service?" with a focus on the need and practicality of the intervention. The follow-up telephone calls were scheduled at 1, 3 months and 6 months after stroke. All included patients were contacted by telephone and offered to answer questions about rehabilitation services during the wartime.

Setting: A survey was conducted by professionals from Bila Tserkva City Hospital 2, an acute neurological department, to assess the patients who had experienced a stroke in order to determine the extent of their recovery one, three, and six months after the event.

Participants: All acute stroke patients were admitted to Bila Tserkva City Hospital 2 from January 1st to March 25th, 2024. We included all patients over 18 years treated at the acute neurology department, for acute ischemic stroke (ICD-10 I.63) or intracerebral hemorrhage (ICD-10 I. 61). Exclusion criteria were: dementia or other cognitive disorders, not willing to participate.

Interventions: Data Collection Forms were created and filled by rehabilitation professionals.

Main Outcome Measures: The intervention has been met with a favorable response from patients, with concerns addressed to the relevant health team members. Our preliminary assessment indicates that a superior standard of rehabilitative care was provided during the acute phase, and we are confident that the three- and six-month follow-ups are crucial.

Results: A total of 20 patients were included in the study. The results demonstrate that 65% of patients received inpatient rehabilitation in the 1st month. Patients were discharged from the inpatient rehabilitation department and returned to their homes, and 30% received outpatient rehabilitation. After three months, 10% of patients returned to the acute hospital for outpatient rehabilitation services, while 90% of patients did not have the opportunity to receive rehabilitation services in their local area or return to the acute hospital. The salient finding is that 80% of patients consulted with their primary healthcare physicians.

Conclusions: We aim to implement a post-discharge phone follow-up service or telerehabilitation. The subsequent objective is facilitating communication between rehabilitation specialists and primary health care physicians.

Author(s) Disclosures: No disclosure.