Search

Introduction: Although studies have evaluated the hospital cost of care associated with treating patients with COVID-19, there are no studies that compare the hospital cost of care among racial and ethnic groups based on detailed cost accounting data. The aims of this study were to provide a detailed description of the hospital costs of COVID-19 based on individual resources during the hospital stay and standardized costs that do not rely on inflation adjustment and evaluate the extent to which hospital total cost of care for patients with COVID-19 differs by race and ethnicity. Methods: This study used electronic medical record data from an urban academic medical center in Chicago, Illinois USA. Hospital cost of care was calculated using accounting data representing the cost of the resources used to the hospital (i.e., cost to the hospital, not payments). A multivariable generalized linear model with a log link function and inverse gaussian distribution family was used to calculate the average marginal effect (AME) for Black, White, and Hispanic patients. A second regression model further compared Hispanic patients by preferred language (English versus Spanish). Results: In our sample of 1,853 patients, the average adjusted cost of care was significantly lower for Black compared to White patients (AME = -$5,606; 95% confidence interval (CI), -$10,711 to -$501), and Hispanic patients had higher cost of care compared to White patients (AME = $8,539, 95% CI, $3,963 to $13,115). In addition, Hispanic patients who preferred Spanish had significantly higher cost than Hispanic patients who preferred English (AME = $11,866; 95% CI $5,302 to $18,431). Conclusion: Total cost of care takes into account both the intensity of the treatment as well as the duration of the hospital stay. Thus, policy makers and health systems can use cost of care as a proxy for severity, especially when looking at the disparities among different race and ethnicity groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Currently, there are no agreed quality standards for post‐stroke aphasia services. Therefore, it is unknown if care reflects best practices or meets the expectations of people living with aphasia. We aimed to (1) shortlist, (2) operationalise and (3) prioritise best practice recommendations for post‐stroke aphasia care. Methods: Three phases of research were conducted. In Phase 1, recommendations with strong evidence and/or known to be important to people with lived experience of aphasia were identified. People with lived experience and health professionals rated the importance of each recommendation through a two‐round e‐Delphi exercise. Recommendations were then ranked for importance and feasibility and analysed using a graph theory–based voting system. In Phase 2, shortlisted recommendations from Phase 1 were converted into quality indicators for appraisal and voting in consensus meetings. In Phase 3, priorities for implementation were established by people with lived experience and health professionals following discussion and anonymous voting. Findings: In Phase 1, 23 best practice recommendations were identified and rated by people with lived experience (n = 26) and health professionals (n = 81). Ten recommendations were shortlisted. In Phase 2, people with lived experience (n = 4) and health professionals (n = 17) reached a consensus on 11 quality indicators, relating to assessment (n = 2), information provision (n = 3), communication partner training (n = 3), goal setting (n = 1), person and family‐centred care (n = 1) and provision of treatment (n = 1). In Phase 3, people with lived experience (n = 5) and health professionals (n = 7) identified three implementation priorities: assessment of aphasia, provision of aphasia‐friendly information and provision of therapy. Interpretation: Our 11 quality indicators and 3 implementation priorities are the first step to enabling systematic, efficient and person‐centred measurement and quality improvement in post‐stroke aphasia services. Quality indicators will be embedded in routine data collection systems, and strategies will be developed to address implementation priorities. Patient and Public Contribution: Protocol development was informed by our previous research, which explored the perspectives of 23 people living with aphasia about best practice aphasia services. Individuals with lived experience of aphasia participated as expert panel members in our three consensus meetings. We received support from consumer advisory networks associated with the Centre for Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation and Recovery and the Queensland Aphasia Research Centre. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To explore how health professionals provide information to informal carers during inpatient stroke rehabilitation and whether these practices align with adult learning principles. Methods: Informal carers and survivors of stroke who had completed inpatient rehabilitation, and health professionals working in inpatient stroke rehabilitation were interviewed. Directed qualitative content analysis was conducted using an adult learning model, to determine how closely reported practices aligned to adult learning principles. Results: 14 carers, 6 survivors of stroke and 17 health professionals participated. Carers (79% female, 57% spouse/partner) reported having incomplete knowledge during rehabilitation, lacking information about mechanisms of stroke recovery, rehabilitation processes, long-term effects of stroke, and navigating post-discharge services. Health professionals supported carers to address their learning needs related to safety of caring for stroke survivors. Carers indicated they were responsible for their own non-safety related learning. Health professionals tended not to check carers' understanding of information provided nor offer learning opportunities beyond written or verbal information. Conclusions: Health professionals consistently provide certain information to carers during inpatient rehabilitation, but adult learning principles are not routinely applied when information is provided. Fostering adult learning among informal carers may improve preparedness of carers to support stroke survivors after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Carers reported often being in a state of shock in the early post-stroke period, and may need extra support to remember, understand, and apply information. Carers are often highly motivated to acquire immediate and relevant information tailored to their situation. Interactions between health professionals and carers are learning opportunities that can assist the carer to commence their unexpected and significant learning journey. Health professionals should apply adult learning principles when communicating with carers on all topics, not just topics important to the healthcare team such as patient safety and requirements for discharge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: It is widely understood that a key means of improving health systems and patient outcomes is through research – accessing, understanding, generating and applying research evidence-based practice. To promote more targeted and strategic research in Allied Health practice, this study sought to establish the principles, areas and priorities for clinical research as perceived by Allied Health leaders in the South Australian public health system. Methods: The study used a mixed-methods design (full, sequential and equal model). Participants were recruited from the South Australian Department of Health and Wellbeing employment lists for Allied Health senior leaders. Consenting participants attended face-to-face focus groups; after an overview presentation, they discussed the principles for Allied Health research, followed by areas and priorities for research. Summaries of the responses were themed descriptively and circulated electronically so participants could confirm the research areas and ascribe priority ratings, clinical populations and services. Results: A total of 28 people attended the stakeholder forum (5 online); 20 responded to the second-round electronic summary. Nine principles of research action were agreed. Fourteen research areas were identified and prioritised. There was a relatively consistent prioritisation of measuring Allied Health value, Allied Health workforce, hospital avoidance and closing the gap for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples health outcomes – whether the individuals were thinking about their own service or the state as a whole. Conclusions: Allied Health leadership identified key principles and priorities for research to improve service delivery and patient outcomes. These priorities should generate further discussion and interest for novice and experienced researchers and leaders and can be used to inform granting and project plans. What is known about the topic? Allied Health are well equipped to engage in research but have limited capacity. What does this paper add? We have identified key priorities and principles to inform Allied Health research activity. What are the implications for practitioners? Practitioners, funders and other stakeholders can develop these identified principles and priorities to direct research time and resources for the most impact on health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Conferences are a widespread method of research dissemination; however, their impact on practice is not well understood empirically. We aimed to investigate how conference participation influences clinical and research practice in the stroke field and to explore which presentation formats are most impactful. Methods: Clinicians, researchers and doctoral students who attended a multidisciplinary stroke conference were invited to participate. Surveys were administered at the conference and 3 months later. Both surveys contained questions about how respondents remember and apply information learnt at conferences in their clinical and/or research practice. Results: Baseline survey responses from 120 conference participants were analysed (80.8% female, 69.0% clinicians, 60.8% aged 31–50 years), and 53 participants completed the follow-up survey. Of the 87 clinician respondents, 73 (83.9%) reported that their clinical practice had changed as a result of attending conferences. Workshops incorporating skill demonstrations were rated most useful for changing clinical practice, whereas oral presentations detailing methodology were more influential on research practice. Attending conferences was rated more impactful on clinical practice than reading journal articles or textbooks. Conclusion: Conference presentations can be a useful method for disseminating research findings to influence clinical practice and should be considered by researchers to maximise the translation and impact of their work. Scientific conferences are a common way for researchers to share their findings, but the impact of conference participation on clinical and research practice is not well understood. In our survey of clinicians, researchers and students who attended a stroke conference, participants reported that conferences are more influential in changing clinical practice than journal articles. This suggests that conference presentations can be a useful method for enhancing evidence‐based practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Diet quality is a marker of how closely eating patterns reflect dietary guidelines. The highest tertile for diet quality scores is associated with 40% lower odds of first stroke compared with the lowest tertile. Little is known about the diet of stroke survivors. We aimed to assess dietary intake and quality of Australian stroke survivors. Methods: Stroke survivors enrolled in the ENAbLE pilot trial (2019/ETH11533, ACTRN12620000189921) and Food Choices after Stroke study (2020ETH/02264) completed the Australian Eating Survey Food Frequency Questionnaire (AES), a 120-item, semiquantitative questionnaire of habitual food intake over the previous 3–6 months. Diet quality was determined by calculating the Australian Recommended Food Score (ARFS): a higher score indicates higher diet quality. Results: Eighty-nine adult, stroke survivors (female: n = 45, 51%) of mean age 59.5 years (±9.9) had a mean ARFS of 30.5 (±9.9) (low diet quality). Mean energy intake was similar to the Australian population: 34.1% from noncore (energy-dense/nutrient-poor) and 65.9% from core (healthy) foods. However, participants in the lowest tertile for diet quality (n = 31) had significantly lower intake of core (60.0%) and higher intake from noncore foods (40.0%). Most participants did not meet daily requirements for fiber, potassium, or omega 3 fatty acids (2%, 15%, and 18%), nutrients important to reduce stroke risk. Conclusion: The diet quality of stroke survivors was poor, with inadequate intake of nutrients important for reducing recurrent stroke risk. Further research is needed to develop effective interventions to improve diet quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Given the gist of his review of Augustine and Tradition (May 19), when Paul Allen wrote that 'one is hard pressed to underestimate his [Augustine's] influence on subsequent thinkers', surely [...]