Search

Background: Theoretical frameworks and models based on behaviour change theories are increasingly used in the development of implementation interventions. Development of an implementation intervention is often based on the available evidence base and practical issues, i.e. feasibility and acceptability. The aim of this study was to describe the development of an implementation intervention for the T3 Trial (Triage, Treatment and Transfer of patients with stroke in emergency departments (EDs)) using theory to recommend behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and drawing on the research evidence base and practical issues of feasibility and acceptability.Methods: A stepped method for developing complex interventions based on theory, evidence and practical issues was adapted using the following steps: (1) Who needs to do what, differently? (2) Using a theoretical framework, which barriers and enablers need to be addressed? (3) Which intervention components (behaviour change techniques and mode(s) of delivery) could overcome the modifiable barriers and enhance the enablers? A researcher panel was convened to review the list of BCTs recommended for use and to identify the most feasible and acceptable techniques to adopt.Results: Seventy-six barriers were reported by hospital staff who attended the workshops (step 1: thirteen TDF domains likely to influence the implementation of the T3 Trial clinical intervention were identified by the researchers; step 2: the researcher panellists then selected one third of the BCTs recommended for use as appropriate for the clinical context of the ED and, using the enabler workshop data, devised enabling strategies for each of the selected BCTs; and step 3: the final implementation intervention consisted of 27 BCTs).Conclusions: The TDF was successfully applied in all steps of developing an implementation intervention for the T3 Trial clinical intervention. The use of researcher panel opinion was an essential part of the BCT selection process to incorporate both research evidence and expert judgment. It is recommended that this stepped approach (theory, evidence and practical issues of feasibility and acceptability) is used to develop highly reportable implementation interventions. The classifying of BCTs using recognised implementation intervention components will facilitate generalisability and sharing across different conditions and clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Multiple barriers may inhibit the adoption of clinical interventions and impede successful implementation. Use of standardised methods to prioritise barriers to target when selecting implementation interventions is an understudied area of implementation research. The aim of this study was to describe a method to identify and prioritise barriers to the implementation of clinical practice elements which were used to inform the development of the T3 trial implementation intervention (Triage, Treatment [thrombolysis administration; monitoring and management of temperature, blood glucose levels, and swallowing difficulties] and Transfer of stroke patients from Emergency Departments [ED]).Methods: A survey was developed based on a literature review and data from a complementary trial to identify the commonly reported barriers for the nine T3 clinical care elements. This was administered via a web-based questionnaire to a purposive sample of Australian multidisciplinary clinicians and managers in acute stroke care. The questionnaire addressed barriers to each of the nine T3 trial clinical care elements. Participants produced two ranked lists: on their perception of: firstly, how influential each barrier was in preventing clinicians from performing the clinical care element (influence attribute); and secondly how difficult the barrier was to overcome (difficulty attribute). The rankings for both influence and difficulty were combined to classify the barriers according to three categories ('least desirable', desirable' or 'most desirable' to target) to assist interpretation.Results: All invited participants completed the survey; (n = 17; 35% medical, 35% nursing, 18% speech pathology, 12% bed managers). The barriers classified as most desirable to target and overcome were a 'lack of protocols for the management of fever' and 'not enough blood glucose monitoring machines'.Conclusions: A structured decision-support procedure has been illustrated and successfully applied to identify and prioritise barriers to target within an implementation intervention. This approach may prove to be a useful in other studies and as an adjunct to undertaking barrier assessments within individual sites when planning implementation interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The implementation of multidisciplinary stroke rehabilitation interventions is challenging, even when the intervention is evidence-based. Very little is known about the implementation of complex interventions in rehabilitation clinical trials. The aim of study was to better understand how the implementation of a rehabilitation intervention in a clinical trial within acute stroke units is experienced by the staff involved. This qualitative process evaluation was part of a large Phase III stroke rehabilitation trial (AVERT).Methods: A descriptive qualitative approach was used. We purposively sampled 53 allied health and nursing staff from 19 acute stroke units in Australia, New Zealand and Scotland. Semi-structured interviews were conducted by phone, voice-internet, or face to face. Digitally recorded interviews were transcribed and analysed by two researchers using rigorous thematic analysis.Results: Our analysis uncovered ten important themes that provide insight into the challenges of implementing complex new rehabilitation practices within complex care settings, plus factors and strategies that assisted implementation. Themes were grouped into three main categories: staff experience of implementing the trial intervention, barriers to implementation, and overcoming the barriers. Participation in the trial was challenging but had personal rewards and improved teamwork at some sites. Over the years that the trial ran some staff perceived a change in usual care. Barriers to trial implementation at some sites included poor teamwork, inadequate staffing, various organisational barriers, staff attitudes and beliefs, and patient-related barriers. Participants described successful implementation strategies that were built on interdisciplinary teamwork, education and strong leadership to 'get staff on board', and developing different ways of working.Conclusions: The AVERT stroke rehabilitation trial required commitment to deliver an intervention that needed strong collaboration between nurses and physiotherapists and was different to current care models. This qualitative process evaluation contributes unique insights into factors that may be critical to successful trials teams, and as AVERT was a pragmatic trial, success factors to delivering complex intervention in clinical practice.Trial Registration: AVERT registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12606000185561 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many stroke rehabilitation services and interventions are complex in that they involve a number of components, interactions, and outcomes. Much of the onus of stroke care lies with rehabilitation services and because stroke rehabilitation is highly resource intensive, it is important for policy makers to consider the potential trade-offs between all relevant costs and benefits. The primary aim of this systematic review was to assess the methods used to conduct economic evaluations of stroke rehabilitation. Studies that compared two or more alternative stroke rehabilitation interventions or services with the costs and outcomes being examined for each alternative were included. EMBASE, MEDLINE In- Process, and National Health Service's Economic Evaluation Database were searched using search strategies. The methodological quality of the included studies was appraised using a checklist for the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations. Twenty-one studies met the selection criteria. The economic evaluations in the majority of these studies were inadequate based on their ability to identify, measure, and value all resources and benefits pertinent to the complexity of stroke rehabilitation. This study highlights that complex interventions such as stroke rehabilitation have widespread effects, which may not be represented by the changes on a single outcome. This study recommends the adoption of a wider cost and benefit perspective in the economic evaluations of complex interventions. It supports a move away from conventional economic evaluation and decision making, based purely on cost-effectiveness, toward multicriteria decision analysis frameworks for complex interventions, where a broader range of criteria may be assessed by policy makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Regaining poststroke mobility is considered a primary goal of the stroke patient in early rehabilitation. Predictive recovery of poststroke mobility is clinically important, and provides important information to healthcare professionals, patients and their families.Weconducted a systematic review aimed at identifying the predictive or associated baseline factors, assessed within one-week of stroke onset, and the recovery of poststroke mobility within 30 days. A comprehensive search strategy was applied to all major electronic databases to identify potentially relevant studies. Included in the review are two studies that evaluate the predictive value of baseline factors by developing a prognostic model, and three studies that assess the baseline factors that were associated with the outcome by univariate analysis.Walking is the most commonly assessed mobility outcome; age, the severity of paresis, reduced leg power, presence of hemianopia, size of brain lesion and type of stroke were shown to be predictive or associated with walking within 30 days poststroke. This review has identified the potential predictors of the recovery of mobility poststroke. There is a need to explore and validate these predictors in other patient cohorts, and consider additional factors believed to be associatedwith mobility. The recovery of mobility other than walking also needs investigation. In order to move prognostic research in stroke forward, a collaborative approach to sharing and collecting data is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical guidelines recommend that assessment and management of patients with stroke commences early including in emergency departments (ED). To inform the development of an implementation intervention targeted in ED, we conducted a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies to identify relevant barriers and enablers to six key clinical behaviours in acute stroke care: appropriate triage, thrombolysis administration, monitoring and management of temperature, blood glucose levels, and of swallowing difficulties and transfer of stroke patients in ED.Methods: Studies of any design, conducted in ED, where barriers or enablers based on primary data were identified for one or more of these six clinical behaviours. Major biomedical databases (CINAHL, OVID SP EMBASE, OVID SP MEDLINE) were searched using comprehensive search strategies. The barriers and enablers were categorised using the theoretical domains framework (TDF). The behaviour change technique (BCT) that best aligned to the strategy each enabler represented was selected for each of the reported enablers using a standard taxonomy.Results: Five qualitative studies and four surveys out of the 44 studies identified met the selection criteria. The majority of barriers reported corresponded with the TDF domains of "environmental, context and resources" (such as stressful working conditions or lack of resources) and "knowledge" (such as lack of guideline awareness or familiarity). The majority of enablers corresponded with the domains of "knowledge" (such as education for physicians on the calculated risk of haemorrhage following intravenous thrombolysis [tPA]) and "skills" (such as providing opportunity to treat stroke cases of varying complexity). The total number of BCTs assigned was 18. The BCTs most frequently assigned to the reported enablers were "focus on past success" and "information about health consequences."Conclusions: Barriers and enablers for the delivery of key evidence-based protocols in an emergency setting have been identified and interpreted within a relevant theoretical framework. This new knowledge has since been used to select specific BCTs to implement evidence-based care in an ED setting. It is recommended that findings from similar future reviews adopt a similar theoretical approach. In particular, the use of existing matrices to assist the selection of relevant BCTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The role of stroke nurses in patient selection and administration of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt‐PA) for acute ischaemic stroke is evolving. Objectives: To compare differences in stroke nurses' practices related to rt‐PA administration in Australia and the United Kingdom (UK) and to examine whether these differences influence rt‐PA treatment rates. Methods: A cross‐sectional, self‐administered questionnaire administered to a lead stroke clinician from hospitals known to provide rt‐PA for acute ischaemic stroke. Chi‐square tests were used to analyse between‐country differences in ten pre‐specified rt‐PA practices. Non‐parametric equality of medians test was used to assess within‐country differences for likelihood of undertaking practices and association with rt‐PA treatment rates. Reporting followed STROBE checklist. Results: Response rate 68%; (Australia: 74% [n = 63/85]; UK: 65% [n = 93/144]). There were significant differences between countries for 7/10 practices. UK nurses were more likely to: request CT scan; screen patient for rt‐PA suitability; gain informed consent; use telemedicine to assess, diagnose or treat; assist in the decision for rt‐PA with Emergency Department physician or neurologist; and undergo training in rt‐PA administration. Reported median hospital rt‐PA treatment rates were 12% in the UK and 7.8% in Australia: (7.8%). In Australia, there was an association between higher treatment rates and nurses involvement in 5/10 practices; read and interpret CT scans; screen patient for rt‐PA suitability; gain informed consent; assess suitability for rt‐PA with neurologist/stroke physician; undergo training in rt‐PA administration. There was no relationship between UK treatment rates and likelihood of a stroke nurse to undertake any of the ten rt‐PA practices. Conclusion: Stroke nurses' active role in rt‐PA administration can improve rt‐PA treatment rates. Models of care that broaden stroke nurses' scope of practice to maximise rt‐PA treatment rates for ischaemic stroke patients are needed. Relevance to clinical practice: This study demonstrates that UK and Australian nurses play an important role in thrombolysis practices; however, they are underused. Formalising and extending the role of stroke nurses in rt‐PA administration could potentially increase thrombolysis rates with clinical benefits for patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the Quality in Acute Stroke Care (QASC) trial undertaken in stroke units (SUs) located in New South Wales (NSW), Australia (2005-2010), facilitated implementation of a nurse-led care bundle to manage fever, hyperglycaemia and swallowing (FeSS protocols) reduced death and disability for patients with stroke. We aimed to determine subsequent adherence to the bundled FeSS processes (reflective of the protocols) between 2013 and 2017 in Australian hospitals, and examine whether changes in adherence to these processes varied based on previous participation in the QASC trial or subsequent statewide scale-up (QASCIP-Quality in Acute Stroke Care Implementation Project) and presence of an SU.Methods: Cross-sectional, observational study using self-reported organisational survey and retrospective clinical audit data from the National Acute Services Stroke Audit (2013, 2015, 2017). Mixed-effects logistic regression was performed with dependent variables: (1) composite outcome measure reflecting compliance with the FeSS protocols and (2) individual FeSS processes, including the year of audit as an independent variable, adjusted for correlation of outcomes within hospital. Separate models including interaction terms between the year of audit and previous participation in QASC/QASCIP and year of audit and SU were also generated.Results: Hospital participation included the following: 2013-124 hospitals, 3741 cases; 2015-112 hospitals, 4087 cases; and 2017-117 hospitals, 4192 cases. An 80% increase in the odds of receiving the composite outcome in 2017 compared to 2013 was found (2013, 30%; 2017, 41%; OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.6, 2.0; p < 0.001). The odds of FeSS adherence from 2013 to 2017 was greater for hospitals that had participated in QASC/QASCIP relative to those that had not (participated OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.7, 2.7; not participated OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4, 1.8; p = 0.03). Similar uptake in adherence was evident in hospitals with and without an SU between 2013 and 2017.Conclusion: The use of the FeSS protocols within Australia increased from 2013 to 2017 with the inclusion of these care processes in the National Audit. Greater uptake in hospitals previously involved in QASC/QASCIP was evident. Our implementation methods may be useful for other national initiatives for improving access to evidence-based practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]