Search

Objective: The current study aimed to evaluate the effects of a multi-component in-hospital intervention on the door-to-needle time for intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke., Design: This study was a post hoc analysis of door-to-needle time data from a cluster-randomised controlled trial testing an intervention to boost intravenous thrombolysis implementation., Setting: The study was conducted among 20 hospitals from three Australian states., Participant: Eligible hospitals had a Stroke Care Unit or staffing equivalent to a stroke physician and a nurse, and were in the early stages of implementing thrombolysis., Intervention: The intervention was multifaceted and developed using the behaviour change wheel and informed by breakthrough collaborative methodology using components of the health behaviour change wheel., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The primary outcome for this analysis was door-to-needle time for thrombolysis and secondary outcome was the proportion of patients received thrombolysis within 60 min of hospital arrival., Results: The intervention versus control difference in the door-to-needle times was non-significant overall nor significant by hospital classification. To provide additional context for the findings, we also evaluated the results within intervention and control hospitals. During the active-intervention period, the intervention hospitals showed a significant decrease in the door-to-needle time of 9.25 min (95% CI: -16.93 to 1.57), but during the post-intervention period, the result was not significant. During the active intervention period, control hospitals also showed a significant decrease in the door-to-needle time of 5.26 min (95% CI: -8.37 to -2.14) and during the post-intervention period, this trend continued with a decrease of 12.13 min (95% CI: -17.44 to 6.81)., Conclusion: Across these primary stroke care centres in Australia, a secular trend towards shorter door-to-needle times across both intervention and control hospitals was evident, however the TIPS (Thrombolysis ImPlementation in Stroke) intervention showed no overall effect on door-to-needle times in the randomised comparison., Trial Registration Number: Trial Registration-URL: http://www.anzctr.org.au/ Unique Identifier: ACTRN 12613000939796., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To assess the impact of behaviour modification interventions to promote restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion practices., Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis., Setting, Participants, Interventions: Seven electronic databases were searched to January 2018. Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised studies examining an intervention to modify healthcare providers' RBC transfusion practice in any healthcare setting were included., Primary and Secondary Outcomes: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients transfused. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of inappropriate transfusions, RBC units transfused per patient, in-hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS), pretransfusion haemoglobin and healthcare costs. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model and meta-regression was performed in cases of heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed by Begg's funnel plot., Results: Eighty-four low to moderate quality studies were included: 3 were RCTs and 81 were non-randomised studies. Thirty-one studies evaluated a single intervention, 44 examined a multimodal intervention. The comparator in all studies was standard of care or historical control. In 33 non-randomised studies, use of an intervention was associated with reduced odds of transfusion (OR 0.63 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.71)), odds of inappropriate transfusion (OR 0.46 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.59)), RBC units/patient weighted mean difference (WMD: -0.50 units (95% CI -0.85 to -0.16)), LOS (WMD: -1.14 days (95% CI -2.12 to -0.16)) and pretransfusion haemoglobin (-0.28 g/dL (95% CI -0.48 to -0.08)). There was no difference in odds of mortality (OR 0.90 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.02)). Protocol/algorithm and multimodal interventions were associated with the greatest decreases in the primary outcome. There was high heterogeneity among estimates and evidence for publication bias., Conclusions: The literature examining the impact of interventions on RBC transfusions is extensive, although most studies are non-randomised. Despite this, pooled analysis of 33 studies revealed improvement in the primary outcome. Future work needs to shift from asking, 'does it work?' to 'what works best and at what cost?', Prospero Registration Number: CRD42015024757., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)