Objective: To assess the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial of occupational therapy predischarge home visits for people after stroke. Design: Randomized controlled trial and cohort study. We randomized eligible patients for whom there was clinical uncertainty about the need to conduct a home visit to a randomized controlled trial; patients for whom a visit was judged 'essential' were enrolled into a cohort study. Setting: Stroke rehabilitation unit of teaching hospital. Participants: One hundred and twenty-six participants hospitalized following recent stroke. Interventions: Predischarge home visit or structured, hospital-based interview. Main outcome measures:The primary objective was to collect information on the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial, including eligibility, control intervention and outcome assessments. The primary outcome measure was the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale at one month after discharge from hospital. Secondary outcomes included mood, quality of life and costs at one week and one month following discharge. Results: Ninety-three people were allocated to the randomized controlled trial; 47 were randomized to intervention and 46 to control. Thirty-three were enrolled into the cohort study. More people were allocated to the randomized controlled trial as the study progressed. One hundred and thirteen people (90%) received the proposed intervention, although there was a need for stricter protocol adherence. Follow-up was good: at one month 114 (90%) were assessed. There were no significant differences Clinical Rehabilitation 27(5) between the groups in the randomized controlled trial for the primary outcome measure at one month. The average cost of a home visit was £208. Conclusion: A trial is feasible and warranted given the resource implications of predischarge occupational therapy home visits.

Background:Little is known about day-to-day procedures in conducting predischarge home visits in occupational therapy. The aim of this study was to identify current practice in relation to people with stroke.Method: A questionnaire was designed and piloted; 184 were posted to stroke units in England.Results: Responses were analysed from 85 stroke units from 10 regions. The main reason for conducting visits was to 'assess or practise activities of daily living in the home environment' (93%), closely followed by to 'identify or address safety issues' (92%). Wide variations exist in time spent on the actual visit (range 10-135 minutes), with a mean time of 63 minutes (SD 20.36), and a mean time of 61 minutes (SD 33.13) for writing a report. Visits were generally conducted by an occupational therapist, with an occupational therapy/physiotherapy assistant. The majority (95%) of therapists reported having a home visit bag and the most common item included was incontinence pads (83%).Conclusion: This research has provided valuable information on, and highlights the variation in, day-to-day predischarge home assessment visits for patients after stroke. The next step must be to use this knowledge to evaluate patient selection and to examine the costs and effectiveness of such visits.

The number of patients who have a pre-discharge home assessment visit following a stroke has been reported to vary nationally. The purpose of this research was to explore the factors influencing occupational therapists' decisions to complete such visits. Method: Semi-structured interviews were completed with 20 senior occupational therapists working with stroke in-patients, from a range of urban and rural locations in the United Kingdom. The interviews explored their views about those patients for whom a pre-discharge home assessment visit would and would not be required. The interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. Findings: Three themes were identified: the patient's level of physical, cognitive, or perceptual impairment and its impact on performance in activities of daily living; factors relating to the patient's home environment, including the availability of support within the home environment; and other influences on occupational therapists. The presence of a cognitive impairment was a particularly important factor. Conclusions: Occupational therapists balanced aspects from each of these themes in order to determine whether a visit was needed or not. Although the level of impairment was important, the most dependent patients were not necessarily those believed to be the most likely to need a visit.

Obtaining research governance approvals for research involving the National Health Service (NHS) has become increasingly complex. In order to obtain the necessary approvals to interview 20 occupational therapists from a range of locations across the United Kingdom, the authors had to submit lengthy applications to all 20 sites. Before issuing their approvals, some sites raised numerous queries, whilst others did not raise any. The time taken to obtain approvals ranged from 6 to 197 days. These disparities highlight that the current research governance procedure for multisite studies is complex and subject to local interpretations. This opinion piece argues that the procedure is excessive for research that does not involve patients and involves NHS staff only. It also argues that this is an injudicious use of resources at a time of national austerity. Implications for the future of occupational therapy research in the United Kingdom are discussed.