Search

Background Existing evidence suggests that clinician and organisation engagement in research can improve healthcare performance. However, current evidence has considered the relationship across all healthcare professions collectively. With the increase in allied health professional (AHP) clinical academic and research activity, it is imperative for healthcare organisations, leaders and managers to understand research engagement within these specific clinical fields. This systematic review aims to examine the value of research engagement by allied health professionals and organisations on healthcare performance. Methods This systematic review had a two-stage search strategy. Firstly, the papers from a previous systematic review examining the effect of research engagement in healthcare were screened to identify relevant papers published pre-2012. Secondly, a multi-database search was used to update the previous review but with a specific focus on allied health to identify publications from 2012 to date. Studies which explored the value of allied health research engagement on healthcare performance were included. All stages of the review were conducted by two reviewers independently, plus documented discussions with the wider research team when discrepancies occurred. Each study was assessed using the appropriate critical appraisal tool developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Results Twenty-two studies were included, of which six were ranked as high importance. This sample comprised mixed research designs. Overall, the findings indicated positive improvements in processes of care. The review also identified the most common mechanisms which may link research engagement with improvements to processes of care. Conclusion This landmark review is the first benchmark of evidence that explicitly shows improved processes of care and outcomes from AHP research engagement. The lack of transparent reporting of AHP research engagement highlights the need for clear recommendation

Background Existing evidence suggests that clinician and organisation engagement in research can improve healthcare performance. However, current evidence has considered the relationship across all healthcare professions collectively. With the increase in allied health professional (AHP) clinical academic and research activity, it is imperative for healthcare organisations, leaders and managers to understand research engagement within these specific clinical fields. This systematic review aims to examine the value of research engagement by allied health professionals and organisations on healthcare performance. Methods This systematic review had a two-stage search strategy. Firstly, the papers from a previous systematic review examining the effect of research engagement in healthcare were screened to identify relevant papers published pre-2012. Secondly, a multi-database search was used to update the previous review but with a specific focus on allied health to identify publications from 2012 to date. Studies which explored the value of allied health research engagement on healthcare performance were included. All stages of the review were conducted by two reviewers independently, plus documented discussions with the wider research team when discrepancies occurred. Each study was assessed using the appropriate critical appraisal tool developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Results Twenty-two studies were included, of which six were ranked as high importance. This sample comprised mixed research designs. Overall, the findings indicated positive improvements in processes of care. The review also identified the most common mechanisms which may link research engagement with improvements to processes of care. Conclusion This landmark review is the first benchmark of evidence that explicitly shows improved processes of care and outcomes from AHP research engagement. The lack of transparent reporting of AHP research engagement highlights the need for clear recommendation

Background There is a need to evaluate if and how telerehabilitation approaches might co-exist within healthcare in the long-term. Our aim was to implement and evaluate a multidisciplinary group-based telerehabilitation approach for people engaging in neurological rehabilitation. Methods NeuroRehabilitation OnLine (NROL) was adapted and implemented within an existing healthcare system as a programme of repeating six-week blocks. A robust evaluation was undertaken simultaneously using a convergent parallel design underpinned by implementation frameworks. This included service data, and patient and staff interviews. Implementation success was conceptualised using the outcomes of appropriateness, acceptability and sustainability. Results Eight NROL blocks delivered 265 sessions with 1347 patient contacts, and NROL continues as part of standard practice. The approach was appropriate for varied demographics and had positive patient opinions and outcomes for many. Staff perceived NROL provided a compatible means to increase therapy and help meet targets, despite needing to mitigate some challenges when fitting the approach within the existing system. NROL was considered acceptable due to good attendance (68%), low drop-out (12%), and a good safety record (one non-injury fall). It was accepted as a new way of working across rehabilitation disciplines as an ‘extra layer of therapy’. NROL had perceived advantages in terms of patient and staff resource (e.g. saving time, energy and travel). NROL provided staffing efficiencies (ratio 0.6) compared to one-to-one delivery. Technology difficulties and reluctance were surmountable with dedicated technology assistance. Leadership commitment was considered key to enable the efforts needed for implementation and sustained use. Conclusion Pragmatic implementation of group-based telerehabilitation was possible as an adjunct to neurological rehabilitation within an existing healthcare system. The compelling advantages reported of having

Background There is a need to evaluate if and how telerehabilitation approaches might co-exist within healthcare in the long-term. Our aim was to implement and evaluate a multidisciplinary group-based telerehabilitation approach for people engaging in neurological rehabilitation. Methods NeuroRehabilitation OnLine (NROL) was adapted and implemented within an existing healthcare system as a programme of repeating six-week blocks. A robust evaluation was undertaken simultaneously using a convergent parallel design underpinned by implementation frameworks. This included service data, and patient and staff interviews. Implementation success was conceptualised using the outcomes of appropriateness, acceptability and sustainability. Results Eight NROL blocks delivered 265 sessions with 1347 patient contacts, and NROL continues as part of standard practice. The approach was appropriate for varied demographics and had positive patient opinions and outcomes for many. Staff perceived NROL provided a compatible means to increase therapy and help meet targets, despite needing to mitigate some challenges when fitting the approach within the existing system. NROL was considered acceptable due to good attendance (68%), low drop-out (12%), and a good safety record (one non-injury fall). It was accepted as a new way of working across rehabilitation disciplines as an ‘extra layer of therapy’. NROL had perceived advantages in terms of patient and staff resource (e.g. saving time, energy and travel). NROL provided staffing efficiencies (ratio 0.6) compared to one-to-one delivery. Technology difficulties and reluctance were surmountable with dedicated technology assistance. Leadership commitment was considered key to enable the efforts needed for implementation and sustained use. Conclusion Pragmatic implementation of group-based telerehabilitation was possible as an adjunct to neurological rehabilitation within an existing healthcare system. The compelling advantages reported of having

Background There is a need to evaluate if and how telerehabilitation approaches might co-exist within healthcare in the long-term. Our aim was to implement and evaluate a multidisciplinary group-based telerehabilitation approach for people engaging in neurological rehabilitation. Methods NeuroRehabilitation OnLine (NROL) was adapted and implemented within an existing healthcare system as a programme of repeating six-week blocks. A robust evaluation was undertaken simultaneously using a convergent parallel design underpinned by implementation frameworks. This included service data, and patient and staff interviews. Implementation success was conceptualised using the outcomes of appropriateness, acceptability and sustainability. Results Eight NROL blocks delivered 265 sessions with 1347 patient contacts, and NROL continues as part of standard practice. The approach was appropriate for varied demographics and had positive patient opinions and outcomes for many. Staff perceived NROL provided a compatible means to increase therapy and help meet targets, despite needing to mitigate some challenges when fitting the approach within the existing system. NROL was considered acceptable due to good attendance (68%), low drop-out (12%), and a good safety record (one non-injury fall). It was accepted as a new way of working across rehabilitation disciplines as an ‘extra layer of therapy’. NROL had perceived advantages in terms of patient and staff resource (e.g. saving time, energy and travel). NROL provided staffing efficiencies (ratio 0.6) compared to one-to-one delivery. Technology difficulties and reluctance were surmountable with dedicated technology assistance. Leadership commitment was considered key to enable the efforts needed for implementation and sustained use. Conclusion Pragmatic implementation of group-based telerehabilitation was possible as an adjunct to neurological rehabilitation within an existing healthcare system. The compelling advantages reported of having

Background Existing evidence suggests that clinician and organisation engagement in research can improve healthcare performance. However, current evidence has considered the relationship across all healthcare professions collectively. With the increase in allied health professional (AHP) clinical academic and research activity, it is imperative for healthcare organisations, leaders and managers to understand research engagement within these specific clinical fields. This systematic review aims to examine the value of research engagement by allied health professionals and organisations on healthcare performance. Methods This systematic review had a two-stage search strategy. Firstly, the papers from a previous systematic review examining the effect of research engagement in healthcare were screened to identify relevant papers published pre-2012. Secondly, a multi-database search was used to update the previous review but with a specific focus on allied health to identify publications from 2012 to date. Studies which explored the value of allied health research engagement on healthcare performance were included. All stages of the review were conducted by two reviewers independently, plus documented discussions with the wider research team when discrepancies occurred. Each study was assessed using the appropriate critical appraisal tool developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Results Twenty-two studies were included, of which six were ranked as high importance. This sample comprised mixed research designs. Overall, the findings indicated positive improvements in processes of care. The review also identified the most common mechanisms which may link research engagement with improvements to processes of care. Conclusion This landmark review is the first benchmark of evidence that explicitly shows improved processes of care and outcomes from AHP research engagement. The lack of transparent reporting of AHP research engagement highlights the need for clear recommendation

Background Existing evidence suggests that clinician and organisation engagement in research can improve healthcare performance. However, current evidence has considered the relationship across all healthcare professions collectively. With the increase in allied health professional (AHP) clinical academic and research activity, it is imperative for healthcare organisations, leaders and managers to understand research engagement within these specific clinical fields. This systematic review aims to examine the value of research engagement by allied health professionals and organisations on healthcare performance. Methods This systematic review had a two-stage search strategy. Firstly, the papers from a previous systematic review examining the effect of research engagement in healthcare were screened to identify relevant papers published pre-2012. Secondly, a multi-database search was used to update the previous review but with a specific focus on allied health to identify publications from 2012 to date. Studies which explored the value of allied health research engagement on healthcare performance were included. All stages of the review were conducted by two reviewers independently, plus documented discussions with the wider research team when discrepancies occurred. Each study was assessed using the appropriate critical appraisal tool developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Results Twenty-two studies were included, of which six were ranked as high importance. This sample comprised mixed research designs. Overall, the findings indicated positive improvements in processes of care. The review also identified the most common mechanisms which may link research engagement with improvements to processes of care. Conclusion This landmark review is the first benchmark of evidence that explicitly shows improved processes of care and outcomes from AHP research engagement. The lack of transparent reporting of AHP research engagement highlights the need for clear recommendation

Background: To successfully reduce the negative impacts of stroke, high-quality health and care practices are needed across the entire stroke care pathway. These practices are not always shared across organisations. Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) offer a unique opportunity for key stakeholders from different organisations to share, learn and ‘take home’ best practice examples, to support local improvement efforts. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness of QICs in improving stroke care and explored the facilitators and barriers to implementing this approach. Methods: Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library) were searched up to June 2020, and reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews were screened. Studies conducted in an adult stroke care setting, which involved multi-professional stroke teams participating in a QIC, were included. Data was extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. For overall effectiveness, a vote counting method was used. Data regarding facilitators and barriers was extracted and mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results: Twenty papers describing twelve QICs used in stroke care were included. QICs varied in their setting, part of the stroke care pathway, and their improvement focus. QIC participation was associated with improvements in clinical processes, but improvements in patient and other outcomes were limited. Key facilitators were inter- and intra-organisational networking, feedback mechanisms, leadership engagement, and access to best practice examples. Key barriers were structural changes during the QIC’s active period, lack of organisational support or prioritisation of QIC activities, and insufficient time and resources to participate in QIC activities. Patient and carer involvement, and health inequalities, were rarely considered. Conclusions: QICs are associated with improving clinical processes in stroke care

Background: To successfully reduce the negative impacts of stroke, high-quality health and care practices are needed across the entire stroke care pathway. These practices are not always shared across organisations. Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) offer a unique opportunity for key stakeholders from different organisations to share, learn and ‘take home’ best practice examples, to support local improvement efforts. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness of QICs in improving stroke care and explored the facilitators and barriers to implementing this approach. Methods: Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library) were searched up to June 2020, and reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews were screened. Studies conducted in an adult stroke care setting, which involved multi-professional stroke teams participating in a QIC, were included. Data was extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. For overall effectiveness, a vote counting method was used. Data regarding facilitators and barriers was extracted and mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results: Twenty papers describing twelve QICs used in stroke care were included. QICs varied in their setting, part of the stroke care pathway, and their improvement focus. QIC participation was associated with improvements in clinical processes, but improvements in patient and other outcomes were limited. Key facilitators were inter- and intra-organisational networking, feedback mechanisms, leadership engagement, and access to best practice examples. Key barriers were structural changes during the QIC’s active period, lack of organisational support or prioritisation of QIC activities, and insufficient time and resources to participate in QIC activities. Patient and carer involvement, and health inequalities, were rarely considered. Conclusions: QICs are associated with improving clinical processes in stroke care

Background: Repetitive sensory stimulation (RSS) is a therapeutic approach which involves repeated electrical stimulation of the skin’s surface to improve function. This rapid systematic review aimed to describe the current evidence for repetitive sensory stimulation (RSS) in rehabilitation of the upper-limb for people who have had a stroke. Main text: Methods: Relevant studies were identified in a systematic search of electronic databases and hand-searching in February 2020. The findings of included studies were synthesized to describe: the safety of RSS, in whom and when after stroke it has been used, the doses used and its effectiveness. Results: Eight studies were included. No serious adverse events were reported. The majority of studies used RSS in participants with mild or moderate impairments and in the chronic stage after stroke. Four studies used RSS in a single treatment session, reporting significant improvements in strength and hand function. Findings from longitudinal studies showed few significant differences between control and experimental groups. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of included studies. Conclusions: This review suggests that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of RSS for the upper-limb after stroke in clinical practice. However, this review highlights several clear research priorities including establishing the mechanism and in whom RSS may work, its safety and optimal treatment parameters to improve function of the upper-limb after stroke.

Background: Repetitive sensory stimulation (RSS) is a therapeutic approach which involves repeated electrical stimulation of the skin’s surface to improve function. This rapid systematic review aimed to describe the current evidence for repetitive sensory stimulation (RSS) in rehabilitation of the upper-limb for people who have had a stroke. Main text: Methods: Relevant studies were identified in a systematic search of electronic databases and hand-searching in February 2020. The findings of included studies were synthesized to describe: the safety of RSS, in whom and when after stroke it has been used, the doses used and its effectiveness. Results: Eight studies were included. No serious adverse events were reported. The majority of studies used RSS in participants with mild or moderate impairments and in the chronic stage after stroke. Four studies used RSS in a single treatment session, reporting significant improvements in strength and hand function. Findings from longitudinal studies showed few significant differences between control and experimental groups. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of included studies. Conclusions: This review suggests that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of RSS for the upper-limb after stroke in clinical practice. However, this review highlights several clear research priorities including establishing the mechanism and in whom RSS may work, its safety and optimal treatment parameters to improve function of the upper-limb after stroke.

Background: Repetitive sensory stimulation (RSS) is a therapeutic approach which involves repeated electrical stimulation of the skin’s surface to improve function. This rapid systematic review aimed to describe the current evidence for repetitive sensory stimulation (RSS) in rehabilitation of the upper-limb for people who have had a stroke. Main text: Methods: Relevant studies were identified in a systematic search of electronic databases and hand-searching in February 2020. The findings of included studies were synthesized to describe: the safety of RSS, in whom and when after stroke it has been used, the doses used and its effectiveness. Results: Eight studies were included. No serious adverse events were reported. The majority of studies used RSS in participants with mild or moderate impairments and in the chronic stage after stroke. Four studies used RSS in a single treatment session, reporting significant improvements in strength and hand function. Findings from longitudinal studies showed few significant differences between control and experimental groups. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of included studies. Conclusions: This review suggests that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of RSS for the upper-limb after stroke in clinical practice. However, this review highlights several clear research priorities including establishing the mechanism and in whom RSS may work, its safety and optimal treatment parameters to improve function of the upper-limb after stroke.