Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Research in the Acute Rehabilitation Setting: a Bridge Too Far?

  • Neurorehabilitation and Recovery (J Krakauer and T Kitago, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The goal of this paper is to critically examine the challenges to clinical practice in acute neurorehabilitation settings to provide evidence-based recommendations for conducting research on neurologic recovery.

Recent Findings

Recent changes in health care have dramatically challenged post-acute care by reducing the length of stay and increasing transitions in care with resulting loss of continuity of care and follow-up. These challenges hinder research and undermine progress in neurorehabilitation.

Summary

Based on recent evidence, a hub and spoke model is proposed to bridge and facilitate continuity of care from acute to subacute to community settings to meet these challenges head on and facilitate research on mechanisms of functional recovery from neurologic conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Group GBDNDC. Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders during 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet Neurol. 2017;16(11):877–97.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Katan M, Luft A. Global burden of stroke. Semin Neurol. 2018;38(2):208–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nahum M, Lee H, Merzenich MM. Principles of neuroplasticity-based rehabilitation. Prog Brain Res. 2013;207:141–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tempest S, Jefferson R. Engaging with clinicians to implement and evaluate the ICF in neurorehabilitation practice. NeuroRehabilitation. 2015;36(1):11–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. •• Winstein CJ, Stein J, Arena R, Bates B, Cherney LR, Cramer SC, et al. Guidelines for adult stroke rehabilitation and recovery: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2016;47(6):e98–e169 These guidelines reinforce the importance of interdisciplinary communication and coordination across care settings as part of comprehensive rehabilitation.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Miller EL, Murray L, Richards L, Zorowitz RD, Bakas T, Clark P, et al. Comprehensive overview of nursing and interdisciplinary rehabilitation care of the stroke patient: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Stroke. 2010;41(10):2402–48.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. • Magdon-Ismail Z, Sicklick A, Hedeman R, Bettger JP, Stein J. Selection of postacute stroke rehabilitation facilities: a survey of discharge planners from the Northeast Cerebrovascular Consortium (NECC) region. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(16):e3206 This study is important because it shows that patients and families and non-clinical factors play a major role in decision making regarding postacute stroke care.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Schumacher R, Walder B, Delhumeau C, Muri RM. Predictors of inpatient (neuro) rehabilitation after acute care of severe traumatic brain injury: an epidemiological study. Brain Inj. 2016;30(10):1186–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jourdan C, Bayen E, Bosserelle V, Azerad S, Genet F, Fermanian C, et al. Referral to rehabilitation after severe traumatic brain injury: results from the PariS-TBI study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013;27(1):35–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Thompson JN, Majumdar J, Sheldrick R, Morcos F. Acute neurorehabilitation versus treatment as usual. Br J Neurosurg. 2013;27(1):24–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pollock A, Baer G, Campbell P, Choo PL, Forster A, Morris J, et al. Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(4):CD001920.

  12. Wattchow KA, McDonnell MN, Hillier SL. Rehabilitation interventions for upper limb function in the first four weeks following stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99(2):367–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hayward KS, Kuys SS, Barker RN, Brauer SG. Can stroke survivors with severe upper arm disability achieve a clinically important change in arm function during inpatient rehabilitation? A multicentre, prospective, observational study. NeuroRehabilitation. 2014;35(1):17–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. • Knecht S, Rossmuller J, Unrath M, Stephan KM, Berger K, Studer B. Old benefit as much as young patients with stroke from high-intensity neurorehabilitation: cohort analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2016;87(5):526–30 This study shows that within the constraints of acute inpatient rehabilitation, functional recovery is related to the amount of therapy and is equivalent in middle-aged, old and very old patients.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Prabhakaran S, Zarahn E, Riley C, Speizer A, Chong JY, Lazar RM, et al. Inter-individual variability in the capacity for motor recovery after ischemic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22(1):64–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Winters C, van Wegen EE, Daffertshofer A, Kwakkel G. Generalizability of the proportional recovery model for the upper extremity after an ischemic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;29(7):614–22.

  17. Feng W, Wang J, Chhatbar PY, Doughty C, Landsittel D, Lioutas VA, et al. Corticospinal tract lesion load: an imaging biomarker for stroke motor outcomes. Ann Neurol. 2015;78(6):860–70.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Byblow WD, Stinear CM, Barber PA, Petoe MA, Ackerley SJ. Proportional recovery after stroke depends on corticomotor integrity. Ann Neurol. 2015;78(6):848–59.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Winstein C. The ATTEND trial: an alternative explanation with implications for future recovery and rehabilitation clinical trials. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2):112–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lang CE, Lohse KR, Birkenmeier RL. Dose and timing in neurorehabilitation: prescribing motor therapy after stroke. Curr Opin Neurol. 2015;28(6):549–55.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Lang CE, Strube MJ, Bland MD, Waddell KJ, Cherry-Allen KM, Nudo RJ, et al. Dose response of task-specific upper limb training in people at least 6 months poststroke: a phase II, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Ann Neurol. 2016;80(3):342–54.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Waddell KJ, Strube MJ, Bailey RR, Klaesner JW, Birkenmeier RL, Dromerick AW, et al. Does task-specific training improve upper limb performance in daily life poststroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31(3):290–300.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Reinkensmeyer DJ, Blackstone S, Bodine C, Brabyn J, Brienza D, Caves K, et al. How a diverse research ecosystem has generated new rehabilitation technologies: review of NIDILRR’s Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017;14(1):109.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Bento VF, Cruz VT, Ribeiro DD, Cunha JP. The vibratory stimulus as a neurorehabilitation tool for stroke patients: proof of concept and tolerability test. NeuroRehabilitation. 2012;30(4):287–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Masiero S, Armani M, Ferlini G, Rosati G, Rossi A. Randomized trial of a robotic assistive device for the upper extremity during early inpatient stroke rehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014;28(4):377–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sale P, Lombardi V, Franceschini M. Hand robotics rehabilitation: feasibility and preliminary results of a robotic treatment in patients with hemiparesis. Stroke Res Treat. 2012;2012:820931.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Yin CW, Sien NY, Ying LA, Chung SF, Tan May Leng D. Virtual reality for upper extremity rehabilitation in early stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2014;28(11):1107–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Twitchell TE. The restoration of motor function following hemiplegia in man. Brain. 1951;74(4):443–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Brunnstrom S. Motor testing procedures in hemiplegia: based on sequential recovery stages. Phys Ther. 1966;46(4):357–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7(1):13–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ramón y Cajal S. Advice for a young investigator. Cambridge. Mass: MIT Press; 1999. xx, 150 p. p.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Damian MS, Ben-Shlomo Y, Howard R, Bellotti T, Harrison D, Griggs K, et al. The effect of secular trends and specialist neurocritical care on mortality for patients with intracerebral haemorrhage, myasthenia gravis and Guillain-Barre syndrome admitted to critical care : an analysis of the Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre (ICNARC) national United Kingdom database. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(8):1405–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gao Y, Jiang L, Wang H, Yu C, Wang W, Liu S, et al. Association between elevated hemoglobin A1c levels and the outcomes of patients with small-artery occlusion: a hospital-based study. PLoS One. 2016;11(8):e0160223.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Dohle C, Korr G, Friedrichs M, Kullmann V, Tung ML, Kaase M, et al. Effective management of an outbreak with multiresistent Klebsiella pneumoniae in a neurorehabilitation unit. Bundesgesundheitsbl Gesundheitsforsch Gesundheitsschutz. 2018;61(5):543–52.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Holcomb EM, Towns S, Kamper JE, Barnett SD, Sherer M, Evans C, et al. The relationship between sleep-wake cycle disturbance and trajectory of cognitive recovery during acute traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2016;31(2):108–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Holcomb EM, Schwartz DJ, McCarthy M, Thomas B, Barnett SD, Nakase-Richardson R. Incidence, characterization, and predictors of sleep apnea in consecutive brain injury rehabilitation admissions. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2016;31(2):82–100.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Towns SJ, Zeitzer J, Kamper J, Holcomb E, Silva MA, Schwartz DJ, et al. Implementation of actigraphy in acute traumatic brain injury (TBI) neurorehabilitation admissions: a veterans administration TBI model systems feasibility study. PM R. 2016;8(11):1046–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kim B, Winstein C. Can neurological biomarkers of brain impairment be used to predict poststroke motor recovery? A Systematic Review. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31(1):3–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Alawieh A, Andersen M, Adkins DL, Tomlinson S. Acute complement inhibition potentiates neurorehabilitation and enhances tPA-mediated neuroprotection. J Neurosci. 2018;38(29):6527–45.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Caltagirone C, Cisari C, Schievano C, Di Paola R, Cordaro M, Bruschetta G, et al. Co-ultramicronized palmitoylethanolamide/luteolin in the treatment of cerebral ischemia: from rodent to man. Transl Stroke Res. 2016;7(1):54–69.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Baillieul S, Chacaroun S, Doutreleau S, Detante O, Pepin JL, Verges S. Hypoxic conditioning and the central nervous system: a new therapeutic opportunity for brain and spinal cord injuries? Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2017;242(11):1198–206.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Esquiva G, Grayston A, Rosell A. Revascularization and endothelial progenitor cells in stroke. Am J Phys Cell Phys. 2018;315:C664–74.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ghosh R, Pepe P. The critical care cascade: a systems approach. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2009;15(4):279–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Maddock RJ, Casazza GA, Fernandez DH, Maddock MI. Acute modulation of cortical glutamate and GABA content by physical activity. J Neurosci. 2016;36(8):2449–57.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Viale L, Catoira NP, Di Girolamo G, Gonzalez CD. Pharmacotherapy and motor recovery after stroke. Expert Rev Neurother. 2018;18(1):65–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Stan A, Birle C, Blesneag A, Iancu M. Cerebrolysin and early neurorehabilitation in patients with acute ischemic stroke: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical study. J Med Life. 2017;10(4):216–22.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. • Christiansen L, Madsen MJ, Bojsen-Moller E, Thomas R, Nielsen JB, Lundbye-Jensen J. Progressive practice promotes motor learning and repeated transient increases in corticospinal excitability across multiple days. Brain Stimul. 2018;11(2):346–57 This study demonstrates that progressive motor practice during consecutive days can induce measurable physiological changes in corticospinal excitability for motor skill learning.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Odderson IR, McKenna BS. A model for management of patients with stroke during the acute phase. Outcome and economic implications. Stroke. 1993;24(12):1823–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ross G, Johnson D, Kobernick M. Evaluation of a critical pathway for stroke. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1997;97(5):269–72 75-6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Stroke Unit Trialists C. Organised inpatient (stroke unit) care for stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(9):CD000197.

  51. Allen D, Rixson L. How has the impact of ‘care pathway technologies’ on service integration in stroke care been measured and what is the strength of the evidence to support their effectiveness in this respect? Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2008;6(1):78–110.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sulch D, Perez I, Melbourn A, Kalra L. Randomized controlled trial of integrated (managed) care pathway for stroke rehabilitation. Stroke. 2000;31(8):1929–34.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Sulch D, Melbourn A, Perez I, Kalra L. Integrated care pathways and quality of life on a stroke rehabilitation unit. Stroke. 2002;33(6):1600–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kitago T, Krakauer JW. Motor learning principles for neurorehabilitation. Handb Clin Neurol. 2013;110:93–103.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Ifejika NL, Vahidy F, Aramburo-Maldonado LA, Cai C, Sline MR, Grotta JC, et al. Acute intravenous tissue plasminogen activator therapy does not impact community discharge after inpatient rehabilitation. Int J Neurorehabil. 2015;2(4).

  56. Colombo R, Sterpi I, Mazzone A, Delconte C, Pisano F. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation in sub-acute and chronic stroke: does spontaneous recovery have a limited impact on outcome? NeuroRehabilitation. 2013;33(4):621–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Wissel J, Olver J, Sunnerhagen KS. Navigating the poststroke continuum of care. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013;22(1):1–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Cameron JI, Tsoi C, Marsella A. Optimizing stroke systems of care by enhancing transitions across care environments. Stroke. 2008;39(9):2637–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Heinemann AW. State-of-the-science on postacute rehabilitation: setting a research agenda and developing an evidence base for practice and public policy: an introduction. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;86(11):869–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Dobkin BH, Carmichael ST. The specific requirements of neural repair trials for stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016;30(5):470–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. •• Carmichael ST. The 3 Rs of stroke biology: radial, relayed, and regenerative. Neurotherapeutics. 2016;13(2):348–59 This paper is important because it suggests biological interventions for various stages of stroke recovery.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Carmichael ST, Kathirvelu B, Schweppe CA, Nie EH. Molecular, cellular and functional events in axonal sprouting after stroke. Exp Neurol. 2017;287(Pt 3):384–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Fortune DG, Walsh RS, Waldron B, McGrath C, Harte M, Casey S, et al. Changes in aspects of social functioning depend upon prior changes in neurodisability in people with acquired brain injury undergoing post-acute neurorehabilitation. Front Psychol. 2015;6:1368.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Jackson HF, Hague G, Daniels L, Aguilar R Jr, Carr D, Kenyon W. Structure to self-structuring: infrastructures and processes in neurobehavioural rehabilitation. NeuroRehabilitation. 2014;34(4):681–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Douw K, Nielsen CP, Pedersen CR. Centralising acute stroke care and moving care to the community in a Danish health region: challenges in implementing a stroke care reform. Health Policy. 2015;119(8):1005–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. •• Fryer CE, Luker JA, McDonnell MN, Hillier SL. Self management programmes for quality of life in people with stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(8):CD010442 This paper provides evidence for using self management programmes for improved quality of life and self efficacy post stroke.

  67. Makela P, Gawned S, Jones F. Starting early: integration of self-management support into an acute stroke service. BMJ Qual Improv Rep. 2014;3(1).

  68. Worthen-Chaudhari L, Whalen CN, Swendal C, Bockbrader M, Haserodt S, Smith R, et al. A feasibility study using interactive graphic art feedback to augment acute neurorehabilitation therapy. NeuroRehabilitation. 2013;33(3):481–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Raghavan P, Geller D, Guerrero N, Aluru V, Eimicke JP, Teresi JA, et al. Music upper limb therapy-integrated: an enriched collaborative approach for stroke rehabilitation. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10:498.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Enderby P, Pandyan A, Bowen A, Hearnden D, Ashburn A, Conroy P, et al. Accessing rehabilitation after stroke - a guessing game? Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(7):709–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Bender A, Bauch S, Grill E. Efficacy of a post-acute interval inpatient neurorehabilitation programme for severe brain injury. Brain Inj. 2014;28(1):44–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Abdul Aziz AF, Mohd Nordin NA, Ali MF, Abd Aziz NA, Sulong S, Aljunid SM. The integrated care pathway for post stroke patients (iCaPPS): a shared care approach between stakeholders in areas with limited access to specialist stroke care services. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):35.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, 240 E 38th Street, 17th Floor, New York, NY, 10016, USA

    Preeti Raghavan

  2. Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, New York University, New York, NY, USA

    Preeti Raghavan

Authors
  1. Preeti Raghavan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Preeti Raghavan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Preeti Raghavan reports conflict from Mirrored Motion Works, Inc., other and from Movease, Inc., outside the submitted work. In addition, Preeti Raghavan has patents on Rehabilitative training devices for use by stroke patients issued, a patent on Game-Based Sensorimotor Rehabilitator pending, and a patent on Use of Hyaluronidase for Treatment of Muscle Stiffness pending.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Neurorehabilitation and Recovery

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Raghavan, P. Research in the Acute Rehabilitation Setting: a Bridge Too Far?. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 19, 4 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11910-019-0919-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11910-019-0919-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation