Understanding post-stroke spasticity (PSS) treatment in everyday clinical practice may guide improvements in patient care.

This was a retrospective cohort study that used population-level administrative data. Adults (aged ≥18 years) who initiated PSS treatment (defined by the first PSS clinic visit, focal botulinum toxin injection, or anti-spasticity medication dispensation [baclofen, dantrolene and tizanidine] with none of these treatments occurring during the 2 years before the stroke) were identified between 2012 and 2019 in Alberta, Canada. Spasticity treatment use, time to treatment start and type of prescribing/treating physician were measured. Descriptive statistics were performed.

Within the cohort (n = 1,079), the most common PSS treatment was oral baclofen (initial treatment: 60.9%; received on/after the initial treatment date up to March 31, 2020: 69.0%), largely prescribed by primary care physicians (77.6%) and started a median of 348 (IQR 741) days after the stroke. Focal botulinum toxin (23.3%; 37.7%) was largely prescribed by physiatrists (72.2%) and started 311 (IQR 446) days after the stroke; spasticity clinic visits (18.6%; 23.8%) were also common.

We found evidence of gaps in provision of spasticity management in persons with PSS including overuse of systemic oral baclofen (that has common adverse side effects and lacks evidence of effectiveness in PSS) and potential underuse of focal botulinum toxin injections. Further investigation and strategies should be pursued to improve alignment of PSS treatment with guideline recommendations that in turn will support better outcomes for those with PSS.

Limited evidence exists regarding care pathways for stroke survivors who do and do not receive poststroke spasticity (PSS) treatment.

Administrative data was used to identify adults who experienced a stroke and sought acute care between 2012 and 2017 in Alberta, Canada. Pathways of stroke care within the health care system were determined among those who initiated PSS treatment (PSS treatment group: outpatient pharmacy dispensation of an anti-spastic medication, focal chemo-denervation injection, or a spasticity tertiary clinic visit) and those who did not (non-PSS treatment group). Time from the stroke event until spasticity treatment initiation, and setting where treatment was initiated were reported. Descriptive statistics were performed.

Health care settings within the pathways of stroke care that the PSS (n = 1,079) and non-PSS (n = 22,922) treatment groups encountered were the emergency department (86 and 84%), acute inpatient care (80 and 69%), inpatient rehabilitation (40 and 12%), and long-term care (19 and 13%), respectively. PSS treatment was initiated a median of 291 (interquartile range 625) days after the stroke event, and most often in the community when patients were residing at home (45%), followed by “other” settings (22%), inpatient rehabilitation (18%), long-term care (11%), and acute inpatient care (4%).

To our knowledge, this is the first population based cohort study describing pathways of care among adults with stroke who subsequently did or did not initiate spasticity treatment. Areas for improvement in care may include strategies for earlier identification and treatment of PSS.

The objective of this study is to determine the physical evaluations and assessment tools used by a group of Canadian healthcare professionals treating adults with spasticity.

A cross-sectional web-based 19-question survey was developed to determine the types of physical evaluations, tone-related impairment measurements, and assessment tools used in the management of adults with spasticity. The survey was distributed to healthcare professionals from the Canadian Advances in Neuro-Orthopedics for Spasticity Congress database.

Eighty study participants (61 physiatrists and 19 other healthcare professionals) completed the survey and were included. Nearly half (46.3%, 37/80) of the participants reported having an inter- or trans-disciplinary team managing individuals with spasticity. Visual observation of movement, available range of motion determination, tone during velocity-dependent passive range of motion looking for a spastic catch, spasticity, and clonus, and evaluation of gait were the most frequently used physical evaluations. The most frequently used spasticity tools were the Modified Ashworth Scale, goniometer, and Goal Attainment Scale. Results were similar in brain- and spinal cord-predominant etiologies. To evaluate goals, qualitative description was used most (37.5%).

Our findings provide a better understanding of the spasticity management landscape in Canada with respect to staffing, physical evaluations, and outcome measurements used in clinical practice. For all etiologies of spasticity, visual observation of patient movement, Modified Ashworth Scale, and qualitative goal outcomes descriptions were most commonly used to guide treatment and optimize outcomes. Understanding the current practice of spasticity assessment will help provide guidance for clinical evaluation and management of spasticity.

To examine temporal trends and geographic variations and predict inpatient rehabilitation (IPR) length of stay (LOS) and home discharge for stroke patients.

Patients aged ≥18 years who were admitted to an IPR facility in Alberta, Canada, between 04/2014 and 03/2018 (years 2014–2017) were included. Predictors of LOS and home discharge were examined using 2014–2016 data and validated using 2017 data. Multivariable linear regression (MLR), multivariable negative binomial (MNB), and multivariable quantile regressions (MQR) were used to examine LOS, and logistic regression was used for home discharge.

We included 2686 rehabilitation admissions between 2014 and 2017. The mean LOS decreased (2014: 71 days; 2017: 62.1 days; p = 0.003) during the study period and was shortest in Edmonton (59.1 days) compared to Calgary (66 days) or other localities (70.8 days; p < 0.001). Three-quarters of patients were discharged home and this proportion remained unchanged between 2014 and 2017. Calgary patients were more likely to be discharged home than those in Edmonton (OR = 0.62; p = 0.019) or other localities (OR = 0.39; p = 0.011). The MLR and MNB models provided accurate prediction for the mean LOS (predicted = 59.9 and 60.8 days, respectively, vs. actual = 62.1 days; both p > 0.5), while the MQR model did so for the median LOS (predicted = 44.3 days vs. actual = 44 days; p = 0.09). The logistic regression resulted in 82.4% of correct prediction, a sensitivity of 91.6%, and a specificity of 50.7% for home discharge.

Rehabilitation LOS decreased while the proportion of home discharge remained unchanged during the study period. Both varied across health zones. Identifiable statistical models provided accurate prediction with a separate patient cohort.