Search

Introduction: People with aphasia following stroke experience disproportionally poor outcomes, yet there is no comprehensive approach to measuring the quality of aphasia services. The Meaningful Evaluation of Aphasia SeRvicES (MEASuRES) minimum dataset was developed in partnership with people with lived experience of aphasia, clinicians and researchers to address this gap. It comprises sociodemographic characteristics, quality indicators, treatment descriptors and outcome measurement instruments. We present a protocol to pilot the MEASuRES minimum dataset in clinical practice, describe the factors that hinder or support implementation and determine meaningful thresholds of clinical change for core outcome measurement instruments., Methods and Analysis: This research aims to deliver a comprehensive quality assessment toolkit for poststroke aphasia services in four studies. A multicentre pilot study (study 1) will test the administration of the MEASuRES minimum dataset within five Australian health services. An embedded mixed-methods process evaluation (study 2) will evaluate the performance of the minimum dataset and explore its clinical applicability. A consensus study (study 3) will establish consumer-informed thresholds of meaningful change on core aphasia outcome constructs, which will then be used to establish minimal important change values for corresponding core outcome measurement instruments (study 4)., Ethics and Dissemination: Studies 1 and 2 have been registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12623001313628). Ethics approval has been obtained from the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (HREC/2023/MNHB/95293) and The University of Queensland (2022/HE001946 and 2023/HE001175). Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and engagement with relevant stakeholders including healthcare providers, policy-makers, stroke and rehabilitation audit and clinical quality registry custodians, consumer support organisations, and individuals with aphasia and their families., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Despite higher incidence of brain injury among Aboriginal compared with non-Aboriginal Australians, suboptimal engagement exists between rehabilitation services and Aboriginal brain injury survivors. Aboriginal patients often feel culturally insecure in hospital and navigation of services post discharge is complex. Health professionals report feeling ill-equipped working with Aboriginal patients. This study will test the impact of a research-informed culturally secure intervention model for Aboriginal people with brain injury. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Design: Stepped wedge cluster randomised control trial design; intervention sequentially introduced at four pairs of healthcare sites across Western Australia at 26-week intervals. Recruitment: Aboriginal participants aged ≥18 years within 4 weeks of an acute stroke or traumatic brain injury. Intervention: (1) Cultural security training for hospital staff and (2) local, trial-specific, Aboriginal Brain Injury Coordinators supporting participants. Primary outcome : Quality-of-life using EuroQOL-5D-3L (European Quality of Life scale, five dimensions, three severity levels) Visual Analogue Scale score at 26 weeks post injury. Recruitment of 312 participants is estimated to detect a difference of 15 points with 80% power at the 5% significance level. A linear mixed model will be used to assess the between-condition difference. Secondary outcome measures : Modified Rankin Scale, Functional Independence Measure, Modified Caregiver Strain Index, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 12 and 26 weeks post injury, rehabilitation occasions of service received, hospital compliance with minimum care processes by 26 weeks post injury, acceptability of Intervention Package, feasibility of Aboriginal Brain Injury Coordinator role. Evaluations : An economic evaluation will determine the potential cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Process evaluation will document fidelity to study processes and capture changing contexts including barriers to intervention implementation and acceptability/feasibility of the intervention through participant questionnaires at 12 and 26 weeks., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has approvals from Aboriginal, university and health services human research ethics committees. Findings will be disseminated through stakeholder reports, participant workshops, peer-reviewed journal articles and conference papers., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12618000139279., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To explore barriers and facilitators to patient communication in an acute and rehabilitation ward setting from the perspectives of hospital staff, volunteers and patients following stroke., Design: A qualitative descriptive study as part of a larger study which aimed to develop and test a Communication Enhanced Environment model in an acute and a rehabilitation ward., Setting: A metropolitan Australian private hospital., Participants: Focus groups with acute and rehabilitation doctors, nurses, allied health staff and volunteers (n=51), and interviews with patients following stroke (n=7), including three with aphasia, were conducted., Results: The key themes related to barriers and facilitators to communication, contained subcategories related to hospital, staff and patient factors. Hospital-related barriers to communication were private rooms, mixed wards, the physical hospital environment, hospital policies, the power imbalance between staff and patients, and task-specific communication. Staff-related barriers to communication were staff perception of time pressures, underutilisation of available resources, staff individual factors such as personality, role perception and lack of knowledge and skills regarding communication strategies. The patient-related barrier to communication involved patients' functional and medical status. Hospital-related facilitators to communication were shared rooms/co-location of patients, visitors and volunteers. Staff-related facilitators to communication were utilisation of resources, speech pathology support, staff knowledge and utilisation of communication strategies, and individual staff factors such as personality. No patient-related facilitators to communication were reported by staff, volunteers or patients., Conclusions: Barriers and facilitators to communication appeared to interconnect with potential to influence one another. This suggests communication access may vary between patients within the same setting. Practical changes may promote communication opportunities for patients in hospital early after stroke such as access to areas for patient co-location as well as areas for privacy, encouraging visitors, enhancing patient autonomy, and providing communication-trained health staff and volunteers., Competing Interests: Competing interests: This research was funded by The Hollywood Private Hospital Research Grant (RF087). SD received an Australian Post Graduate Award Scholarship for the first year of this study and received an ECU Research Travel Grant. The authors have no other competing interests to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To develop and validate a national set of best practice statements for use in post-stroke aphasia rehabilitation., Design: Literature review and statement validation using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM)., Participants: A national Community of Practice of over 250 speech pathologists, researchers, consumers and policymakers developed a framework consisting of eight areas of care in aphasia rehabilitation. This framework provided the structure for the development of a care pathway containing aphasia rehabilitation best practice statements. Nine speech pathologists with expertise in aphasia rehabilitation participated in two rounds of RAND/UCLA appropriateness ratings of the statements. Panellists consisted of researchers, service managers, clinicians and policymakers., Main Outcome Measures: Statements that achieved a high level of agreement and an overall median score of 7-9 on a nine-point scale were rated as 'appropriate'., Results: 74 best practice statements were extracted from the literature and rated across eight areas of care (eg, receiving the right referrals, providing intervention). At the end of Round 1, 71 of the 74 statements were rated as appropriate, no statements were rated as inappropriate, and three statements were rated as uncertain. All 74 statements were then rated again in the face-to-face second round. 16 statements were added through splitting existing items or adding new statements. Seven statements were deleted leaving 83 statements. Agreement was reached for 82 of the final 83 statements., Conclusions: This national set of 82 best practice statements across eight care areas for the rehabilitation of people with aphasia is the first to be validated by an expert panel. These statements form a crucial component of the Australian Aphasia Rehabilitation Pathway (AARP) (http://www.aphasiapathway.com.au) and provide the basis for more consistent implementation of evidence-based practice in stroke rehabilitation., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)