[Purpose] Limitations in performing the 180°-turning increase the risk of falls and disabilities in stroke patients. The aim of this study was to characterize and compare the 180°-turning between people with and without stroke, considering the direction towards which they turned. [Subjects and Methods] Fourteen subjects with stroke and 14 matched healthy controls performed the 180°-turning twice while walking: towards the self-selected, and the opposite directions. The turning performances were recorded using three video cameras. The videos were randomly analyzed by a single examiner, who characterized the turning, while considering the time required to complete the task, the number of steps, balance, and turning type. Friedman Tests and ANOVA (2 × 2) were used to compare the groups and turning direction factors (turning towards the self-selected versus opposite sides, and towards the paretic/non-dominant versus non-paretic/dominant sides). [Results] No interaction between the groups and turning directions, and no significant differences between the turning directions were found. However, significant differences were found between the groups for all variables used to characterize the turning performance, except for the type of turning. [Conclusion] Stroke subjects demonstrated poor performance on the 180°-turning, regardless of the turning direction. Duration, number of steps, and balance loss indicated difficulties in turn performance.

Introduction: Motor impairments, which are prevalent in stroke subjects, require physical therapy (PT) rehabilitation. In primary care in the Brazilian Public Health System, PT are part of the Núcleo de Apoio à Saúde da Família (NASF). Objective: To describe the PT assistance provided to stroke patients in a primary healthcare center. Methods: The records of all stroke patients (n = 44; 69.23 ± 13.12 years) identified by the health professionals were analyzed. Using keyword recognition, frequency analysis of the services offered by the PT was performed. Subjects were classified according to the Modified Rankin Scale. Results: In the 44 records, 45.5% had a description of the assistance provided by any professional of the NASF and 36.4% of the PT care. PT care was provided at the subject’s home (94.2%) and at the healthcare center (5.8%). The PT practices were identified as: orientation (93.8%), evaluation (87.5%), exercises (50%), follow-up (37.5%), referral to another service or to undergrad PT students (18.8%), and referral to other NASF professionals (12.5%). Most of the subjects were classified as having mild/moderate disability. Conclusion: The minority of records had registration of attendance by the NASF PT. The majority of the sessions occurred at the subject’s home, which reveals a practice focused on individual care. The orientation was common, which illustrates that in primary care there is a focus on empowerment for health self-improvement. Follow-up was not common, despite clinical guidelines state that stroke subjects should be monitored at least once a year by the rehabilitation team.

No abstract