Jason Hsu, Kirk Kee, Andrew Perkins, Alex Gorelik, Jeremy Goldin, Louisa Ng
{"title":"Effectiveness of a Novel Sleep Clinical Pathway in an Inpatient Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Cohort: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Jason Hsu, Kirk Kee, Andrew Perkins, Alex Gorelik, Jeremy Goldin, Louisa Ng","doi":"10.2340/20030711-1000029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Sleep disturbance in hospital is common. This pilot randomized controlled trial assessed a sleep clinical pathway compared with standard care in improving sleep quality, engagement in therapy and length of stay in musculoskeletal inpatient rehabilitation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants (<i>n</i> = 51) were randomized to standard care (\"control\", <i>n</i> =29) or sleep clinical pathway (\"intervention\", <i>n</i> = 22). Outcome measures included: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Hopkins Rehabilitation Engagement Rating Scale (HRERS), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Patient Satisfaction with Sleep Scale, and actigraphy. Assessment time-points were at admission and before discharge from rehabilitation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences were found between groups for any outcome measure. As a cohort (<i>n</i> = 51), there were significant improvements from admission to discharge in sleep quality (PSQI (-2.31; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) -3.33 to -1.30; <i>p</i> <0.001)], fatigue (FSS (-8.75; 95% CI -13.15 to -4.34; <i>p</i> <0.001)], engagement with therapy (HRERS-Physiotherapists (+1.37; 95% CI 0.51-3.17; <i>p</i> =0.037), HRERS-Occupational Therapists (+1.84; 95% CI 0.089-2.65; <i>p</i> = 0.008)), and satisfaction with sleep (+0.824; 95% CI 0.35-1.30; <i>p</i> = 0.001). Actigraphy findings were equivocal.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The sleep clinical pathway did not improve sleep quality compared with standard care. Larger studies and studies with alternate methodology such as \"cluster randomization\" are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":73929,"journal":{"name":"Journal of rehabilitation medicine. Clinical communications","volume":"3 ","pages":"1000029"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/a1/1d/JRMCC-3-1000029.PMC8008738.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of rehabilitation medicine. Clinical communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/20030711-1000029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: Sleep disturbance in hospital is common. This pilot randomized controlled trial assessed a sleep clinical pathway compared with standard care in improving sleep quality, engagement in therapy and length of stay in musculoskeletal inpatient rehabilitation.
Methods: Participants (n = 51) were randomized to standard care ("control", n =29) or sleep clinical pathway ("intervention", n = 22). Outcome measures included: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Hopkins Rehabilitation Engagement Rating Scale (HRERS), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Patient Satisfaction with Sleep Scale, and actigraphy. Assessment time-points were at admission and before discharge from rehabilitation.
Results: No significant differences were found between groups for any outcome measure. As a cohort (n = 51), there were significant improvements from admission to discharge in sleep quality (PSQI (-2.31; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) -3.33 to -1.30; p <0.001)], fatigue (FSS (-8.75; 95% CI -13.15 to -4.34; p <0.001)], engagement with therapy (HRERS-Physiotherapists (+1.37; 95% CI 0.51-3.17; p =0.037), HRERS-Occupational Therapists (+1.84; 95% CI 0.089-2.65; p = 0.008)), and satisfaction with sleep (+0.824; 95% CI 0.35-1.30; p = 0.001). Actigraphy findings were equivocal.
Conclusion: The sleep clinical pathway did not improve sleep quality compared with standard care. Larger studies and studies with alternate methodology such as "cluster randomization" are needed.