Purpose. The aim of this study was to compare the time allocated to therapeutic activities ( TA) and non-therapeutic activities (NTA) of physiotherapists ( PT) and occupational therapists (OT) in stroke rehabilitation units in four European countries.Method. Therapists documented their activities in 15-min periods for two weeks. They recorded: activity, number of patients, number of stroke patients, involvement of other people, location and frequency of each activity. Kruskal-Wallis tests and negative binomial regression models were used to compare activities between professional groups and between units.Results. The average proportion of TA per day ranged between 32.9% and 66.1% and was higher for PT than for OT in each unit. For OT, significant differences emerged between the units in the proportion of time allocated to TA compared to NTA with British OTs spending significantly less time in TA. In the Belgian unit, three times less time was spent on patient-related co-ordination activities ( e. g., administration, ward rounds) compared to the British and Swiss units.Conclusions. Time allocation differed between PT and OT and between units, affecting the time available for TA. Further investigation is necessary to study the effect of work organization in stroke rehabilitation units on the efficiency of rehabilitation regimes.

BACKGROUND:Previous studies have shown an inverse gradient in socioeconomic status for disability after stroke. However, no distinction has been made between the period in the stroke rehabilitation unit (SRU) and the period after discharge. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of education and equivalent income on motor and functional recovery for both periods.METHODS:419 consecutive patients were recruited from six SRUs across Europe. The Barthel Index (BI) and Rivermead Motor Assessment (RMA) were measured on admission, at discharge and 6 months after stroke. Ordinal logistic regression models were used, adjusting for case mix. Cumulative odds ratios (OR) were calculated to measure differences in recovery between educational levels and income groups with adjustments for case mix.RESULTS:Patients with a low educational level were less likely to improve on the BI (OR 0.53; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.87) and the RMA arm during inpatient stay (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.94). For this period, no differences in recovery were found between income groups. After discharge, patients with a low equivalent income were less likely to improve on all three sections of the RMA: gross function (OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.66), leg and trunk (OR 0.22; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.55) and arm (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.87). No differences were found for education.CONCLUSIONS:During inpatient rehabilitation, educational level was a determinant of recovery, while after discharge, equivalent income played an important role. This study suggests that it is important to develop a better understanding of how socioeconomic factors affect the recovery of stroke patients.