Oral Presentation Smart Strokes Annual Scientific Meeting 2024

A glimpse into advanced technology in stroke rehabilitation (106533)

Louise Pearce 1 2 3 , Julie Pryor 2 4 , Jason Redhead 2 , Catherine Sherrington 1 5 , Leanne Hassett 1 3 6
  1. Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  2. Royal Rehab Group, Ryde, NSW, Australia
  3. Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  4. Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  5. Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  6. Implementation Science Academy, Sydney Health Partners, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Introduction: Technology is increasingly accessible in rehabilitation; however, a poor understanding of integrating technology into practice persists. An Australian rehabilitation provider opened a technology therapy centre in 2022, providing a unique opportunity to generate practice-based evidence on rehabilitation technology implementation and clinician adoption.

Methods: An observational cohort study was conducted. Allied health clinicians (n=119) had access to use 21 advanced technologies with patients undergoing rehabilitation; including robotic, virtual reality (VR), sensor-based and functional electrical stimulation devices. Data were collected from patient electronic medical records from 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023 and included device(s) used, patient demographics, clinician discipline, rehabilitation service, technology therapy session goal(s) and therapy dosage. Chi-square tests were used to investigate associations between patient diagnoses and type of device used.

Results: Clinicians (predominantly physiotherapists, 65% and occupational therapists, 33%) used advanced technology 4,208 times with 269 patients, 47% of which were patients with stroke. For stroke rehabilitation, clinicians primarily used upper limb robotic VR devices (n=620, 31%), and non-robotic lower limb devices, including a VR-enhanced treadmill (n=254, 13%), an overground robotic exoskeleton (n=239, 12%), and an overground body-weight support device (n=225, 11%). Overall, clinicians reported 144 different goals for using advanced technology in patient therapy sessions, mostly at the impairment (60%) or activity-limitation level (31%).

Conclusion: Advanced technology can be successfully integrated into rehabilitation, particularly when tailored strategies (e.g., clinician training pathways) are used. However, the type and amount of device usage differs between patient populations. Further research is required to provide evidence of effectiveness for using advanced technology across patient populations.

Relevance to clinical practice or patient experience: It is important to select devices to match rehabilitation context. Our study found that patients with stroke demonstrated suitability for the largest range of devices and were the greatest users of advanced technology.