Taille du texte :    +   -

Réadaptation en clinique externe et en milieu communautaire (incluant le congé précoce avec soutiens)

2016 MISE À JOUR
février 2016

La 5e édition des Recommandations canadiennes pour les pratiques optimales de soins de l’AVC sur Réadaptation post-AVC (2015) est publiée dans l’International Journal of Stroke et est accessible en ligne gratuitement. Afin d’accéder aux recommandations spécifiques pour : Réadaptation en consultation externe et en milieu communautaire (incluant le congé précoce assiste), et tous les autres chapitres des recommandations sur Réadaptation post-AVC, veuillez cliquer sur ce lien, qui vous dirigera vers les recommandations en ligne dans l’Internal Journal of Stroke : http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1747493016643553

Pour la version française de ces recommandations, veuillez consulter l’annexe en cliquant sur le lien suivant : http://wso.sagepub.com/content/suppl/2016/04/18/1747493016643553.DC1/Stroke_Rehabilitation_2015_IJS_Manuscript_FINAL_FRENCH.pdf

Tous les autres renseignements connexes, y compris les indicateurs de rendement, les ressources de mise en l’œuvre, les résumés des données probantes et les références, sont accessibles au www.pratiquesoptimales.ca, et non pas sur le site de l’International Journal of Stroke. Veuillez cliquer sur les sections appropriées de notre site Web pour le contenu additionnel.

Justification

Certains patients présentant des déficits légers peuvent sans risque retourner chez eux pour poursuivre leur réadaptation et obtenir des résultats qui sont aussi bons, voire meilleurs que ceux qu’ils auraient obtenus s’ils étaient demeurés hospitalisés. Les services de congé précoce avec soutien offrent également l’avantage d’être moins coûteux.

À leur congé de l’hôpital, de nombreux patients, malgré les soins de réadaptation reçus, ont toujours besoin de traitements continus s’ils veulent atteindre les objectifs qu’ils se sont fixés. La réadaptation en milieu communautaire peut être définie comme les soins reçus lorsque le patient a traversé la phase aiguë et effectué la transition vers son domicile et son milieu communautaire. Dans les petites collectivités et les régions rurales et éloignées, il est très difficile d’avoir accès aux soins ambulatoires ou à la réadaptation en milieu communautaire. Par conséquent, des mesures novatrices comme la thérapie à domicile et la technologie de télémédecine devraient être utilisées.

Selon les données disponibles, la réintégration dans la collectivité peut prendre jusqu’à un an après l’AVC, et la majorité des gains à ce chapitre sont obtenus dans les six premiers mois après l’AVC.

Exigences pour le système

Il existe un manque flagrant de ressources en matière de réadaptation en consultation externe et en milieu communautaire. Par conséquent, le système de santé doit s’efforcer d’obtenir et d’offrir les éléments suivants :

  • Un accès en temps opportun à des services de réadaptation post-AVC pour les patients qui retournent dans la collectivité après leur congé de l’hôpital.
  • Des soins de l’AVC organisés et accessibles dans les collectivités, notamment pour les patients ayant de la difficulté à communiquer.
  • Un plus grand nombre de cliniciens qualifiés possédant une expérience en soins de réadaptation en milieu communautaire et en consultation externe.
  • Des stratégies optimisées visant la prévention secondaire de l’AVC, notamment le dépistage régulier des facteurs de risque d’AVC et l’utilisation d’outils de dépistage validés.
  • Des initiatives de soutien en matière de réadaptation post-AVC destinées aux aidants pour permettre aux patients/aidants de mieux comprendre le plan de réadaptation et d’accroître leur adhésion à celui-ci.
  • Des services de réadaptation de longue durée disponibles à grande échelle et ne présentant aucun obstacle financier, dans les centres de soins infirmiers, les établissements de soins de longue durée, les services de consultation externe et les programmes communautaires, y compris les visites à domicile.
  • Une utilisation accrue de la télémédecine pour élargir l’accès aux services de réadaptation en consultation externe.
  • Des mécanismes prospectifs de collecte de données pour l’évaluation et le suivi. Tous les programmes devraient avoir déjà mis ces éléments en place ou être en voie de le faire.

Indicateurs de rendement

  1. Pourcentage des patients ayant survécu à un AVC qui reçoivent leur congé pour réintégrer la collectivité et qui sont orientés vers des services de réadaptation continus à leur congé de l’hôpital de soins actifs ou de l’établissement de réadaptation pour patients hospitalisés.
  2. Délai médian entre la référence en réadaptation à titre de patient externe et l’admission dans un programme de réadaptation dans la collectivité.
  3. Fréquence et durée des services offerts par des professionnels de la réadaptation en milieu communautaire.
  4. Ampleur des changements dans les scores fonctionnels, mesurés à l’aide d’un outil uniformisé, pour les survivants d’un AVC participant à un programme de réadaptation communautaire.
  5. Délai entre l’orientation vers la réadaptation de longue durée en consultation externe/en milieu communautaire et le début des traitements.
  6. Pourcentage des personnes ayant reçu un diagnostic d’AVC qui obtiennent des soins en consultation externe ou en milieu communautaire après leur admission à l’hôpital pour un épisode d’AVC aigu.
  7. Pourcentage des personnes évaluées en consultation externe recevant des services, suivies ou prises en charge dans un programme de réadaptation post-AVC dans tous les districts/sections/collectivités desservis par le service/programme (notamment par télémédecine, en clinique et à domicile).
  8. Nombre de patients avec AVC évalués par des physiothérapeutes, ergothérapeutes, orthophonistes et travailleurs sociaux dans la collectivité.
  9. Utilisation des services de santé connexes aux soins de l’AVC offerts dans la collectivité pour la réadaptation post-AVC, incluant le moment et l’intensité des services.

Remarques relatives aux indicateurs de rendement

  • Plusieurs indicateurs de rendement nécessitent la collecte de données ciblées par la vérification des dossiers des patients en réadaptation et des dossiers des programmes communautaires. La qualité et la disponibilité des données dépendent de la qualité de la documentation.
  • En ce qui concerne l’indicateur de rendement 3, l’obtention des renseignements relatifs à la fréquence et à la durée des services des professionnels de la réadaptation exige une vérification des dossiers ou des outils fiables de mesure de la charge de travail adoptés sur le plan local ou régional. On devrait y retrouver des données sur le nombre total de visites ou de séances de thérapie par discipline que le patient reçoit au cours d’une période définie (p. ex., les six premières semaines après l’AVC) et la durée médiane de chaque séance.
  • La disponibilité des données concernant les programmes communautaires varie considérablement entre les programmes, les régions et les provinces. Il faudrait adopter des outils de vérification uniformisés pour la collecte de ces données.
  • Les résultats de l’instrument MIF se trouvent dans la banque de données du SNIR de l’ICIS pour ce qui est des organismes qui y contribuent.

Ressources pour la mise en œuvre et outils d’application des connaissances

Renseignements destinés aux fournisseurs de soins de santé

Renseignements destinés au patient

Résumé des données probantes

Lien vers les tableaux de données probantes et la liste des références

Outpatient therapy is often prescribed following discharge from acute in-patient care, in-patient stroke rehabilitation units and/or may be required several months or years later for survivors with ongoing rehabilitation goals. Continuing therapy may include hospital-based “day” hospital programs, community-based programs, or home-based rehabilitation, depending on resource availability and patient considerations.

The Outpatient Service Trialists (2002) identified 14 studies that randomized patients with stroke who, at the time of recruitment, were living at home prior to stroke and were within 1 year of stroke onset, to receive specialized outpatient therapy-based interventions or usual care (often no additional treatment). Service interventions examined included those that were outpatient based (home-based n=2, day hospital or outpatient clinic n=12). In these trials, provision of services included physiotherapy, occupational therapy services or interprofessional staff working with patients primarily to improve task-oriented behaviour and hence increase activity and participation. Outpatient therapy was associated with a reduced odds of a poor outcome (OR=0.72 95% CI 0.57–0.92; p=0.009) and increased personal activity of daily living scores (SMD=0.14, 95% CI 0.02–0.25; p=0.02). For every 100 residents with stroke in the community receiving therapy-based rehabilitation services, 7 (95% CI 2–11) patients would be spared a poor outcome, assuming 37.5% would have had a poor outcome with no treatment. The authors concluded that therapy-based rehabilitation services targeted toward stroke patients living at home appear to improve independence in personal activities of daily living. There is also some evidence that quality of life improves following outpatient rehabilitation. In a recent systematic review by Fens et al. (2013), the authors identified two trials that assessed quality of life and reported favourable effects associated with outpatient rehabilitation for up to 3 months post discharge home.

In studies that provided additional occupational therapy (OT) as a sole therapy to patients within 6 months of stroke who were living at home, the results from studies are mixed. Sackley et al. (2006) randomized 118 patients with moderate to severe stroke (Barthel Index [BI] scores of 4–15) who had been admitted to 12 nursing homes to receive a 3 month occupational therapy (OT) program that was client-centred and targeted towards independence in ADL, or to receive no OT. At 6 months, although there were no significant differences between groups in terms of improvement in BI or Rivermead Mobility Index scores, significantly fewer patients in the OT group had a poor global outcome (51% vs. 76%, p=0.03), defined as deterioration of BI scores or death. In a trial that randomized 138 patients who planned to return home following discharge from hospital, to receive either 6 weeks of domiciliary OT or to receive routine post-stroke follow-up care, there were significantly improved outcomes for approximately half of the outcomes assessed. There were no significant differences at 6 months between groups for Nottingham EADL scores (primary outcome), BI or London Handicap scores. There were significant differences favouring the OT group for selected components of Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and Dartmouth COOP Charts (Gilbertson et al. 2000, Gilbertson & Langhorne 2000). When 185 patients who had sustained a stroke within the previous 6 months and had not have been admitted to hospital received outpatient OT for up to five months, there were significantly greater improvements in Nottingham EADL scores at 6 months and one year, compared with patients in the control group who received usual care (Walker et al. 1999).

There is some evidence that patients who receive outpatient rehabilitation in their homes may have better short-term outcomes compared with those who received services in a day hospital or clinic setting. A systematic review and meta-analysis (Hillier & Inglis-Jassiem 2010) compiled the results from 11 RCTs that included patients who were discharged from inpatient rehabilitation to home following a stroke and who had been living in the community prior to the event. Home-based therapy was associated with a 1-point mean difference in BI gain at 6–8 weeks following the intervention and a 4-point difference at 3–6 months. By 6 months following treatment, there were no longer significant differences between groups. The majority of the trials that have examined the comparison between home and community-based and hospital-based rehabilitation programs have failed to identify the superiority of one service provision model over the other. The interventions most commonly assessed were physiotherapy and/or occupational therapy and the outcomes usually included scales of ADL or extended ADL performance, gait speed and/or quality of life (Young & Forester, 1992, Gladman et al. 1993, 1994, Lincoln et al. 2004, Bjorkdahl et al. 2006). In a trial evaluating the benefit of hospital vs. community-based physiotherapy for patients whose rehabilitation goals included independent ambulation, while patients in both groups had improved after a 7-week program, there were no differences between groups in gait speed or performance on the 6MWT (Lord et al. 2009).

There is also high-quality evidence that rehabilitation in the home or community is less costly than inpatient rehabilitation. In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, Brusco et al. (2014) identified four studies (n=732) comparing the cost of inpatient rehabilitation to that of home or community-based rehabilitation for patients with moderate to severe stroke. Based on these results, inpatient rehabilitation was found to be more costly, as compared to outpatient programs offered at home, with an overall effect size of 0.31 (95% CI 0.15–0.48) (Brusco et al. 2014).

Early Supported Discharge

Early-supported discharge (ESD) is a form of rehabilitation designed to accelerate the transition from hospital to home through the provision of rehabilitation therapies delivered by an interprofessional team, in the community. It is intended as an alternative to a complete course of inpatient rehabilitation and is most suitable for patients recovering from mild to moderate stroke. An argument in favour of ESD programs is that, since the goal of rehabilitation is to establish skills that are appropriate to the home setting, the home provides the optimal rehabilitation environment. Key components of ESD that have been reported as contributing to favorable outcomes include: in-hospital and discharge planning: a case manager or ‘key worker’ based in the stroke unit who constituted the link between the stroke unity and the outpatient care, guaranteeing continuity in both time and personnel, and enabling the smooth transition from the hospital to the home.

Patients who are recovering from mild strokes and are recipients of ESD programs have been shown to achieve similar outcomes compared with patients who receive a course of inpatient rehabilitation. The effectiveness of ESD programs following acute stroke has been evaluated most comprehensively by the Early Supported Discharge Trialists. In the most updated version of the review (Fearon et al. 2012), the results from 14 RCTs were included. The majority of the trials evaluated ESD using a multidisciplinary team which, coordinated discharge from hospital, and provided rehabilitation and patient care at home. ESD was associated with a reduction in the odds of death or the need for institutional care (OR=0.78, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.00, p=0.049), death or dependency, (OR=0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97, p=0.021) improvement in performance of extended ADL (SMD=0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.26, p=0.024) and satisfaction with services (OR=1.6, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.38, p=0.019). The ESD groups showed significant reductions (p<0.0001) in the length of hospital stay equivalent to approximately eight days. There were no significant differences between groups on the outcomes associated with patients’ carers (subjective health status, mood or satisfaction with services).

Langhorne et al. (2005) reported additional patient level analysis from their original Cochrane review, which examined the effects of patient characteristics and differing levels of service provision (more coordinated v. less organized) on the outcome of death and dependency. The levels of service provision evaluated were: (1) early supported discharge team with coordination and delivery, whereby an interprofessional team coordinated discharge from hospital and post discharge care and provided rehabilitation therapies in the home; (2) early supported discharge team coordination, whereby discharge and immediate post-discharge plans were coordinated by an interprofessional care team, but rehabilitation therapies were provided by community-based agencies; and (3) no early supported discharge team coordination, whereby therapies were provided by uncoordinated community services or by healthcare volunteers. There was a reduction in the odds of a poor outcome for patients with a moderate initial stroke severity (BI 10-20), (OR= 0.73; 0.57-0.93), but not among patients with severe disability (BI< 9) and also among patients who received care from a coordinated multidisciplinary ESD team (0.70; 0.56- 0.88) compared to those without an ESD team. Based on the results of this study, it would appear that a select group of patients, with mild to moderately disabling stroke, receiving more coordinated ESD could achieve better outcomes compared to organized inpatient care on a stroke unit.

Home Exercise Programs

The effectiveness of home-based exercise programs for mobility improvement was recently the subject of a Cochrane review (Coupar et al. 2012). The results from four RCTs (n=166) examining home-based therapy program targeted at the upper limb were included. The effectiveness of therapy was compared with usual care in three studies (Duncan et al. 1998, 2003; Piron et al. 2009). The primary outcomes were performance on ADL and functional movement of the upper limb. The results were not significant for both outcomes (MD 2.85 95% CI -1.43–7.14 and MD 2.25 95% CI -0.24–4.73, respectively). No significant treatment effect was observed for secondary outcome measures as well (performance on extended ADL and upper limb motor impairment). The authors concluded that there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of home-based therapy programs compared to usual care.

A number of individual trials, not included in the aforementioned Cochrane review, compared the effectiveness of home-based therapy with usual care, placebo, or no intervention. Nadeau et al. (2013) randomized 408 patients admitted to inpatient rehabilitation within 45 days of stroke, to receive locomotor training program (LTP), home exercise program (HEP), or standard care, for up to 12 to 16 weeks. Both LTP and HEP groups improved significantly in functional walking level and balance, compared to the usual therapy group, with no significant difference separating the two treatment groups. Harris et al. (2009) compared the effectiveness of home-based self-administered program to that of non-therapeutic education program and found significant treatment-associated effects on paretic upper limb performance, which was maintained for up to 3 months post treatment. In a RCT by Langhammer et al. (2007), the intensive exercise group demonstrated significantly greater improvements in motor assessment scale from admission to discharge from acute care, as well as from 6 months to 1 year post stroke, compared with the regular exercise group.