This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Affiliated Nanjing Brain Hospital, Nanjing Medical University (approval No. 2024k021; Date: May 16, 2024). Because the study involved only anonymized retrospective data and no direct patient contact, the Ethics Committee waived the requirement for informed consent.
Study subjects
Potentially eligible admissions between May 2024 and May 2026 were identified retrospectively from the available hospital records. The final analytic cohort comprised 150 patients who met all eligibility criteria; however, because a complete prescreening log was not retained, the total number initially screened, and the number excluded for each reason could not be reconstructed reliably. This limitation is acknowledged explicitly in the Discussion. The May 2024–May 2026 period refers to the admission window rather than the end of outcome ascertainment. Follow-up continued until each included patient had completed the planned 4-week post-discharge assessment, including patients admitted in May 2026, and the database was locked in August 2026, only after the final eligible patient had completed this follow-up. According to the nursing model actually received during hospitalization and traceably recorded in nursing documents, the patients were divided into an observation group and a control group. The observation group included 69 patients and received the integrated collaborative nursing model guided by multidimensional cognitive rehabilitation; the control group included 81 patients and received routine neurological nursing. Both groups received standardized diagnosis and treatment for their primary neurological diseases, and the difference in nursing models was regarded as the main exposure factor in this study. The diagnoses were pooled because the nursing model targeted shared rehabilitation needs, including cognitive impairment, nutritional risk, impaired ADL performance, and caregiver-supported continuity of care, rather than disease-specific pathophysiology. Primary neurological diagnosis was therefore treated as a potential confounder in adjusted analyses, and diagnosis-specific effects were not inferred from the pooled cohort. Among the included patients, 21 were recorded under the combined category “epilepsy or other neurological disorders”; more granular diagnostic coding within this low-frequency category was not consistently available for retrospective reclassification. All data were obtained from the hospital electronic medical record system, laboratory information system, and other relevant sources. The research team had no contact with the patients and did not perform any intervention. All data were anonymized before processing; therefore, informed consent was waived.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: age ≥18 years; hospitalization for stroke, Parkinson's disease, traumatic brain injury, epilepsy, or other neurological diseases, with varying degrees of cognitive decline during the disease course; cognitive impairment identified within 24 h after admission by a trained neurology nurse using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)11 or the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE)12; for the MoCA, a score <26 indicated cognitive impairment after adding 1 point for patients with ≤12 years of education, whereas the education-adjusted MMSE thresholds were ≤17 for illiterate patients, ≤20 for those with primary-school education, and ≤24 for those with junior-high-school education or above; relatively stable vital signs and ability to complete basic cognitive, nutritional, and daily living ability (ADL) assessments; and basically complete nursing records, rehabilitation records, laboratory examinations, and follow-up data during hospitalization.
Exclusion criteria: a definite diagnosis of severe dementia, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or other severe psychiatric disorders before admission; severe disturbance of consciousness, severe aphasia, obvious hearing or visual impairment, or other conditions that made scale assessment impossible; concomitant end-stage malignant tumor, severe cardiac, hepatic, or renal failure, active infection, or other diseases that could substantially affect nutritional status and functional outcomes; death during hospitalization, discharge against medical advice, or transfer to another specialty, resulting in missing major outcome data; and missing key variables that could not be supplemented through electronic medical records, nursing records, rehabilitation records, or follow-up data. Pre-existing mild or moderate dementia or mild cognitive impairment was not an automatic exclusion criterion provided that the patient could complete the required assessments and met all other eligibility criteria.
Routine nursing
Nursing care started after admission and continued until discharge and was implemented by the responsible nurse under the supervision of the head nurse. After admission, the responsible nurse completed vital signs monitoring, condition observation, fall-risk assessment, pressure-injury risk assessment, medication guidance, basic nursing care, dietary education, and safety education in accordance with routine departmental practice. For patients with limited limb activity, decreased swallowing function, or reduced self-care ability, nurses provided position management, turning and back-patting, feeding assistance, bedside activity guidance, and complication prevention according to medical orders and the patient's actual condition. Before discharge, the responsible nurse provided routine discharge education to patients and family members, including medication use, follow-up time, dietary precautions, basic rehabilitation training, and home safety protection.
Integrated collaborative nursing model guided by multidimensional cognitive rehabilitation
In this model, the responsible nurse served as the primary implementer, the head nurse was responsible for quality control, and neurologists, rehabilitation therapists, nutritionists, and the main caregivers participated jointly according to the patient's functional status. Nursing was initiated within 24 h after admission, continued throughout hospitalization, and extended to 4 weeks after discharge. The implementation personnel, main content, frequency, and quality control points are shown in Table 1.
(1) Within 24 h after admission, the responsible nurse completed a comprehensive nursing assessment. If the patient had relatively evident cognitive impairment, increased nutritional risk, or reduced ability to perform activities of daily living, the responsible nurse reported the assessment results to the head nurse and, when necessary, invited a rehabilitation therapist or nutritionist to participate in developing the nursing plan. The individualized nursing focus was usually formed within 48 h after admission and recorded in the nursing plan or specialized nursing record.
(2) Cognitive rehabilitation nursing usually began after the patient had stable vital signs, clear consciousness, and the ability to follow basic instructions, most often within 24–48 h after admission. This part was performed by the responsible nurse or a trained rehabilitation nurse, with training suggestions provided by the rehabilitation therapist. Training was generally performed once daily, 20–30 min each time; for patients with fatigue, dizziness, emotional resistance, or disease fluctuation, a single session could be shortened to 10–15 min and, if necessary, completed in divided sessions. Training content was selected according to the patient's main cognitive deficits and included reality orientation, attention, memory, and executive function training.
(3) The responsible nurse completed Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form (MNA-SF)-based nutritional screening within 24 h after admission and assessed swallowing status from routine bedside swallowing evaluation and documented clinical signs, including choking, wet voice, and pharyngeal residue. For patients with nutritional risk, insufficient intake, dysphagia, or weight loss, the responsible nurse developed a dietary nursing plan with physicians and nutritionists; daily intake was reviewed against individualized energy and protein requirements, food texture and meal frequency were adjusted according to swallowing tolerance, and nutritional status was reassessed at least weekly or whenever the clinical condition changed. Oral nutritional supplements or enteral nutrition, when clinically indicated, followed the physician or nutritionist prescriptions and were implemented and monitored by nursing staff rather than being standardized components of the nursing exposure. For patients at risk of aspiration, nurses assisted them in eating in a sitting or semi-recumbent position, controlled eating speed, observed choking, wet voice, pharyngeal residue sensation, and other manifestations, and reported abnormal conditions to physicians in a timely manner.
(4) Training in daily living tasks was carried out after the patient's condition was stable and basic activity safety conditions were met, with the responsible nurse, rehabilitation therapist, and main caregiver participating together. For patients with cognitive impairment, nurses used task decomposition, repeated prompting, visual cues, and fixed-order training to assist them in completing tasks. For example, medication management training included identifying drug names or colors, repeating medication times, using pill boxes for classification, and simulating medication-taking procedures with family assistance; eating training emphasized pre-meal preparation, use of tableware, swallowing safety, and oral cleaning after meals; dressing and transfer training focused on action sequence, postural stability, and fall prevention.
(5) Family collaborative nursing ran through the hospitalization and discharge preparation stages. Within 72 h after admission, the responsible nurse identified the main caregiver and conducted the first nursing communication, which included the characteristics of the patient's cognitive impairment, staged rehabilitation goals, nutritional risks, key points of life care, and safety risks; during hospitalization, nurses encouraged the main caregiver to participate in cognitive training, eating observation, and ADL training, so that they could understand the patient's specific needs for prompting, assistance, and supervision. At 24–48 h before discharge, the responsible nurse provided centralized discharge guidance, focusing on home-based cognitive training methods, dietary management, medication supervision, fall and aspiration prevention, recognition of abnormal symptoms, and follow-up requirements.
(6) Post-discharge continuity of care was handled by the responsible nurse, and the head nurse regularly checked follow-up completion. Follow-up was usually scheduled at week 1, week 2, and week 4 after discharge and could be completed by telephone or online. Follow-up content included completion of cognitive training, food intake, and body weight changes, adverse events, and whether unplanned readmission occurred; if interrupted training, insufficient nutritional intake, medication errors, or increased safety risk was identified during follow-up, the responsible nurse provided targeted guidance and reported the issue to the neurologist, rehabilitation therapist, or nutritionist according to the problem type.
Evaluation of intervention implementation quality and adherence
Process indicators during hospitalization and post-discharge follow-up were extracted, including cognitive training completion rate, nutritional nursing plan implementation rate, ADL training completion rate, family participation rate, and post-discharge follow-up completion rate. The prespecified core components comprised daily dietary-intake review, ADL training (once daily for 20–30 min), caregiver education during hospitalization and again before discharge, and nurse follow-up at weeks 1, 2, and 4 after discharge. These core nursing procedures were routinely scheduled for eligible patients, whereas specialist consultation, modification or division of training sessions, oral nutritional supplementation, enteral nutrition, and other condition-specific measures were optional and were used only when clinically indicated; caregiver participation in individual bedside training sessions was encouraged when feasible rather than required at every session. For reporting purposes in this retrospective analysis, the between-group difference in MoCA was designated as the primary outcome. MMSE, MNA-SF, Barthel index, instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), functional independence measure (FIM) motor and cognitive scores, and medication-management ability were treated as secondary outcomes; cognitive-domain measures, biochemical and hematologic parameters, implementation and adherence measures, cognitive-training process measures, and continuity-of-care measures were considered exploratory. For Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form (MNA-SF), body mass index (BMI), albumin (ALB), prealbumin (PA), hemoglobin (HGB), Barthel index, instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), and Functional Independence Measure (FIM) outcomes, baseline was defined as the first eligible assessment obtained after admission and before implementation of the individualized nursing plan, whereas the final assessment was the corresponding evaluation at completion of the 4-week post-discharge follow-up. Cognitive-rehabilitation process measures were extracted from the first and final documented inpatient training sessions; medication-management ability was assessed during discharge preparation, and safety and continuity-of-care outcomes were ascertained from discharge through the end of the 4-week follow-up. Safety outcomes were analyzed separately as described below.
Evaluation of cognitive function
Global cognitive function was assessed using the standard Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), both established cognitive screening instruments scored from 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better cognitive performance11,12. The MoCA attention subscore (0–6 points) and delayed-recall subscore (0–5 points) were extracted as domain-specific measures, with higher scores indicating better performance. Executive task performance was additionally assessed using the classification-switching task employed in the rehabilitation program, for which completion time was recorded in seconds and a shorter time indicated better performance; this task was a locally used rehabilitation performance measure rather than a separately validated cognitive scale.
Evaluation of cognitive rehabilitation process performance
Process performance during cognitive rehabilitation training was extracted to reflect patients' recovery in specific training tasks, including memory task accuracy, attention task completion rate, digit span or sequence repetition performance, classification-switching task completion time, and number of cognitive training interruptions.
Evaluation of nutritional status
Nutritional status was assessed primarily with the MNA-SF13, with body mass index (BMI) recorded as an anthropometric measure. Albumin (ALB) and prealbumin (PA) were analyzed as supportive biochemical parameters rather than direct or independent markers of nutritional status because they are influenced by systemic illness and inflammatory status; hemoglobin (HGB) was included as a supportive hematologic parameter because anemia may coexist with inadequate intake and chronic disease, but it was not treated as a nutrition-specific marker.
Evaluation of the ability to perform daily living tasks
The ability to perform daily living tasks was evaluated from four aspects: basic activities of daily living, instrumental activities of daily living, functional independence, and specific life-task execution ability; basic activities of daily living were evaluated using the Barthel index14, including eating, bathing, grooming, dressing, bowel control, bladder control, toileting, bed-chair transfer, walking on level ground, and stair climbing; the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) scale15 was used to evaluate patients' task-processing ability in more complex living scenarios; the motor and cognitive dimensions of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) scale16 were used to reflect patients' level of functional independence; medication-management ability was assessed by the responsible nurse during discharge preparation using nursing and discharge-guidance records together with a structured teach-back and simulated medication-taking task. The denominator comprised all patients in each group with a prescribed discharge medication regimen (69 in the observation group and 81 in the control group); “correctly repeat and carry out the medication regimen” required the patient to correctly identify the prescribed medications, state the prescribed timing and dose, repeat the complete regimen, and demonstrate the medication-taking sequence without corrective prompting from the nurse.
Safety and continuity-of-care outcomes
Individual safety outcomes included falls, aspiration or aspiration pneumonia, and unplanned readmission occurring from hospital discharge through completion of the 4-week post-discharge follow-up; events occurring during the index hospitalization were not included in these follow-up safety outcomes. A post hoc exploratory composite was defined as the occurrence of at least one of these three events during follow-up; because the components have different mechanisms and risk factors, the composite was used only as a summary exploratory measure. Continuity-of-care outcomes included post-discharge follow-up completion and completion of nursing-plan adjustment during follow-up.
Data quality control
To reduce information bias in this retrospective study, the research team standardized variable definitions and developed a standardized data extraction form prior to data extraction. Two trained researchers independently extracted the data and cross-checked key variables; when discrepancies occurred, a third researcher made the decision based on original medical records, nursing records, and laboratory system records. All 150 included patients had complete data for the primary and secondary outcomes, and no imputation was performed. General implementation and adherence indicators, including cognitive-training completion, nutritional-plan implementation, ADL-training completion, family participation, and post-discharge follow-up completion, were available from routine nursing documentation in both groups. In contrast, the detailed task-level cognitive rehabilitation performance variables, memory task accuracy, attention task completion rate, digit span/sequence repetition performance, classification-switching task completion time, and number of training interruptions, were systematically recorded only for the 69 observation-group patients and therefore were not compared between groups. Dysphagia severity, route of nutritional intake, and comorbidity burden were not consistently available as structured variables and therefore could not be included as baseline covariates.
Statistical analysis
All commercial software and materials used in this study, including statistical analysis software, are presented in the Table of Materials. Continuous variables were tested for normality; normally distributed variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and compared between groups using the independent-samples t test, whereas non-normally distributed variables were expressed as median (interquartile range) and compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Within-group pre-post comparisons were performed using the paired-samples t test when appropriate. Categorical variables were expressed as counts and percentages and compared using the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. For key comparisons, effect estimates were reported as mean differences or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). To address measured confounding, multivariable linear regression models were fitted for post-intervention MoCA, MMSE, MNA-SF, Barthel index, IADL, FIM motor, and FIM cognitive scores, with the nursing model as the main exposure and adjustment for age, sex, education level, primary neurological diagnosis, disease course, cognitive impairment severity, and the corresponding baseline outcome. A sensitivity analysis restricted to patients with stroke was performed for MoCA, MNA-SF, and Barthel index. Because one primary outcome was specified for analytical reporting and the remaining outcomes were secondary or exploratory, no formal multiplicity adjustment was applied to the latter analyses, whose P values were interpreted descriptively. All tests were two-sided, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant for the primary analysis.