Outcomes after in-reach multidisciplinary rehabilitation in the acute ward
Excluded (n = 143)
No intervention/research staff (n = 28)
Previous intensive care admission
(n = 25)
Transferred/Discharged (n = 17)
Over age 75 years (n = 12)
Overseas visitor/non-English
speaking background (n = 12)
Already referred to the in-reach
team in ICU (n = 10)
Deceased/Palliative (n = 5)
Substance abuse/psychiatric (n = 5)
Barthel Index <70 (n = 3)
No person responsible (n = 3)
601
Screened for eligibility (n = 209)
Eligible (n = 89)
Declined (n = 23)
Enrolled and Randomised (n = 66)
Early Rehabilitation (n = 30) Usual Care (n = 36)
Intervention – Early Rehabilitation
Received Early Rehabilitation (n = 30) Intervention - Usual Care
Received Early Rehabilitation (n = 6)
Received Usual Care (n = 30)
Follow up – Discharge
Assessment completed (n = 29)
Loss to follow up
Deceased (n = 1) Follow up – Discharge
Assessment completed (n = 33)
Loss to follow up
Deceased (n = 3)
Follow up 6 months
Assessment completed (n = 27)
Loss to follow up (n = 2)
Deceased (n = 1)
Withdrawal (n = 1) Follow up 6 months
Assessment completed (n = 29)
Loss to follow up (n = 4)
Deceased (n = 1)
Withdrawal (n = 3)
Follow up 12 months
Assessment completed (n = 24)
Loss to follow up (n = 3)
Deceased (n = 1)
Withdrawal (n = 2) Follow up 12 months
Assessment completed (n = 26)
Loss to follow up (n = 3)
Deceased (n = 1)
Withdrawal (n = 2)
Analysis (n = 29)
Analysis (n = 33)
Fig. 1. Flow of participants through the trial.
a mean of 17.8 (SD = 14.9) days on an acute ward.
One patient in the intervention group did not receive
the in-reach rehabilitation intervention, as they were
transferred back to the referring rural hospital within
2 days of recruitment, before the intervention could be
commenced. Six out of the 33 patients in the control
group received early rehabilitation from the in-reach
team, as their primary care teams made a referral as
part of usual care and standard hospital practice.
The therapy dosage received in both groups and
activPAL data are described in Table II. The interven-
tion group received a median of 8.2 (IQR 6.0–11.8)
occasions of service from physiotherapy and occupa-
tional therapy per week. This was significantly higher
(p = 0.001) than the usual care group, who received
4.9 (IQR 2.6–7.0) occasions of service per week. The
activPAL data demonstrated low levels of physical acti-
vity across both groups, whereby participants achieved
approximately 500 steps in a 24-hour period, with no
significant between-group differences.
Length of stay
Intention-to-treat analyses were conducted for LOS
and are presented in Table III. No significant between-
group differences were observed for LOS measures,
except for rehabilitation LOS. The rehabilitation LOS
was, however, based on low numbers (as only 9 pa-
tients in the intervention group and 10 in the control
group went to inpatient rehabilitation). Median values
for total LOS appeared to differ between groups, (31
days [IQR 20–56] for the early rehabilitation group
J Rehabil Med 51, 2019