English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

A comparison of outcome and length of stay (LOS) between a control group of 248 unscreened patients (reported in Part 1) and a second group of 318 patients, medically and socially screened prior to admission, - all discharged from the same 30-bed stroke unit over a 33 month period - showed that preadmission medical, neurological, and social service screening did not improve overall outcome or reduce length of stay (LOS). A program aimed at identifying and treating perceptual and cognitive dysfunction did improve functional status and discharge disposition in patients having perceptual but not cognitive deficits. A detailed analysis of the factors influencing outcome and LOS confirmed and extended earlier findings that: 1) severe weakness on admission and long onset-admission intervals were adversely related to outcome as were the presence of perceptual or cognitive dysfunction, poor motivation, a homonymous hemianopsia, multiple neurologic deficits, and poor functional status on discharge; and 2) dysphasia, the presence of a hemisensory loss, age (under 80) and/or the presence of ASHD/hypertension/diabetes were unrelated to outcome. It was again demonstrated that most patients - even those with unfavorable prognostic signs - significantly improved after appropriate treatment programs.

Factors influencing outcome and length of stay in a stroke rehabilitation unit. Part 2. Comparison of 318 screened and 248 unscreened patients.