Search

The aim of this study was to describe differences in long-term outcomes for patients discharged to inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) following stroke compared to patients discharged directly home or to residential aged care facilities (RACFs). Cohort study. Data from the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry were linked to hospital admissions records and the national death index. Main outcomes: death and hospital readmissions up to 12 months post-admission, Health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL) 90-180 days post-admission. Of 8,555 included patients (median age 75, 55% male, 83% ischemic stroke), 4,405 (51.5%) were discharged home, 3,442 (40.2%) to IRFs, and 708 (8.3%) to RACFs. No between-group differences were observed in hazard of death between patients discharged to IRFs versus home. Fewer patients discharged to IRFs were readmitted to hospital within 90, 180 or 365-days compared to patients discharged home (adjusted subhazard ratio [aSHR]:90-days 0.54, 95%CI 0.49, 0.61; aSHR:180-days 0.74, 95%CI 0.67, 0.82; aSHR:365-days 0.85, 95%CI 0.78, 0.93). Fewer patients discharged to IRFs reported problems with mobility compared to those discharged home (adjusted OR 0.54, 95%CI 0.47, 0.63), or to RACFs (aOR 0.35, 95%CI 0.25, 0.48). Overall HRQoL between 90-180 days was worse for people discharged to IRFs versus those discharged home and better than those discharged to RACFs. Several long-term outcomes differed significantly for patients discharged to different settings after stroke. Patients discharged to IRFs reported some better outcomes than people discharge directly home despite having markers of more severe stroke. People with mild strokes are usually discharged directly home, people with moderate severity strokes to inpatient rehabilitation, and people with very severe strokes are usually discharged to residential aged care facilities. People discharged to inpatient rehabilitation reported fewer problems with mobility and had a reduced risk of hospital readmission in the first year post-stroke compared to people discharged directly home after stroke. The median self-reported health-related quality of life for people discharged to residential aged care equated to 'worst health state imaginable'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Implementation of evidence-based care remains a key challenge in clinical practice. Determining "what" to implement can guide implementation efforts. This paper describes a process developed to identify priority recommendations from clinical guidelines for implementation, incorporating the perspectives of both consumers and health professionals. A case study is presented where the process was used to prioritize recommendations for implementation from the Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines.Methods: The process was developed by a multidisciplinary group of researchers following consultation with experts in the field of implementation and stroke care in Australia. Use of the process incorporated surveys and facilitated workshops. Survey data were analysed descriptively; responses to ranking exercises were analysed via a graph theory-based voting system.Results: The four-step process to identify high-priority recommendations for implementation comprised the following: (1) identifying key implementation criteria, which included (a) reliability of the evidence underpinning the recommendation, (b) capacity to measure change in practice, (c) a recommendation-practice gap, (d) clinical importance and (e) feasibility of making the recommended changes; (2) shortlisting recommendations; (3) ranking shortlisted recommendations and (4) reaching consensus on top priorities. The process was applied to the Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines between February 2019 and February 2020. Seventy-five health professionals and 16 consumers participated. Use of the process was feasible. Three recommendations were identified as priorities for implementation from over 400 recommendations.Conclusion: It is possible to implement a robust process which involves consumers, clinicians and researchers to systematically prioritize guideline recommendations for implementation. The process is generalizable and could be applied in clinical areas other than stroke and in different geographical regions to identify implementation priorities. The identification of three clear priority recommendations for implementation from the Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines will directly inform the development and delivery of national implementation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To identify perceived enablers and barriers that may influence the implementation of water protocols (WPs) as an intervention for dysphagia in acute stroke settings. Method: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine nurses, eight speech-language pathologists (SLPs), five doctors and four dietitians working in acute stroke units in a major city in Australia. Data were thematically analysed and themes were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework. Result: Ten barriers and nine enablers were identified. Key barriers were: nurses lack oral care skills and agency nurses lack stroke-specific skills; only SLPs are perceived to be involved with WPs; WP rules will not get followed and may lead to adverse patient outcomes; WPs increase nursing workload; transient workforce impacts efficiency of implementation; and established culture of using thickened fluids. Key enablers were: patients would benefit from WPs; communication and education systems are already in place; acute hospital brings unique benefits; and peer support and modelling support implementation. Conclusion: The perceptions of barriers and enablers to implementation of WPs can be used to inform future studies designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of WPs and subsequently facilitate their uptake in acute stroke as an alternate dysphagia management strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To identify factors associated with receiving acute goal-directed treatment, being assessed for ongoing rehabilitation, and receiving post-acute rehabilitation after having a stroke.Design: Retrospective analysis of National Stroke Audit data for patients with acute stroke treated at Australian hospitals during 1 September 2014 - 28 February 2015.Setting, Participants: 112 Australian hospitals that admit adults with acute stroke.Main Outcomes: Associations between patient-related and organisational factors and the provision of rehabilitation interventions.Results: Data for 3462 patients were eligible for analysis; their median age was 74 years, 1962 (57%) were men, and 2470 (71%) had received care in a stroke unit. 2505 patients (72%) received goal-directed treatment during their acute admission; it was not provided to 364 patients (10.5%) who were responsive, had not fully recovered, and did not refuse treatment. Factors associated with higher odds of receiving goal-directed treatment included goal-setting with the patient and their family (odds ratio [OR], 6.75; 95% CI, 5.07-8.90) and receiving care in a stroke unit (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.61-2.70). 1358 patients (39%) underwent further rehabilitation after discharge from acute care; factors associated with receiving post-acute rehabilitation included care in a stroke unit (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.34-2.22) and having an arm or speech deficit. Dementia was associated with lower odds of receiving acute goal-directed treatment (OR, 0.49; 95%, 0.33-0.73) and post-acute rehabilitation (OR, 0.43; 95%, 0.30-0.61).Conclusions: Access to stroke units and to early and ongoing rehabilitation for patients after stroke can be improved in Australia, both to optimise outcomes and to reduce the burden of care on underresourced community and primary care providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To explore the factors perceived to affect rehabilitation assessment and referral practices for patients with stroke. Design: Qualitative study using data from focus groups analysed thematically and then mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework. Setting: Eight acute stroke units in two states of Australia. Subjects: Health professionals working in acute stroke units. Interventions: Health professionals at all sites had participated in interventions to improve rehabilitation assessment and referral practices, which included provision of copies of an evidence-based decision-making rehabilitation Assessment Tool and pathway. Results: Eight focus groups were conducted (32 total participants). Reported rehabilitation assessment and referral practices varied markedly between units. Continence and mood were not routinely assessed (4 units), and people with stroke symptoms were not consistently referred to rehabilitation (4 units). Key factors influencing practice were identified and included whether health professionals perceived that use of the Assessment Tool would improve rehabilitation assessment practices (theoretical domain 'social and professional role'); beliefs about outcomes from changing practice such as increased equity for patients or conversely that changing rehabilitation referral patterns would not affect access to rehabilitation ('belief about consequences'); the influence of the unit's relationships with other groups including rehabilitation teams ('social influences' domain) and understanding within the acute stroke unit team of the purpose of changing assessment practices ('knowledge' domain). Conclusion: This study has identified that health professionals' perceived roles, beliefs about consequences from changing practice and relationships with rehabilitation service providers were perceived to influence rehabilitation assessment and referral practices on Australian acute stroke units. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is of critical importance that findings from the wealth of clinical physical therapist research are transferred into clinical practice without unnecessary delays. There is a lack of knowledge about strategies that can be used to effectively implement physical therapist research findings and evidence-based practice (EBP) into everyday clinical practice in different national settings and contexts. The purpose of this article is to contribute to knowledge about effective strategies for implementing EBP that have been studied in different national physical therapy settings. The specific aims of this article are to share experiences and provide a current multinational perspective on different approaches and strategies for implementing EBP and to highlight important considerations and implications for both research and practice. Six research studies from various settings in 3 countries are described and synthesized. Key characteristics of the studies and intervention components are tabulated and mapped to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care taxonomy. Commonalities and differences are presented. The implementation strategies described were: a theory-based guideline implementation tailored to identified barriers and facilitators; a multifaceted EBP training package; journal clubs; a multifaceted strategy comprising contextualized procedures, protocols, and standardized resources; barrier identification, education, audit, feedback, and reminders; and contextualized guidelines. Commonalities were the use of a multifaceted approach, educational measures, and clinical guidelines. Key outcomes across the studies were improved attitudes and increased awareness, knowledge, skills, and confidence in EBP; better access to clinical practice guidelines and other EBP resources; identification of barriers that could be targeted in future implementation activities; earlier referrals; and use of recommended outcome measures. The article can serve as a template for other physical therapist researchers in designing implementation studies, as well as to inform policies and practice for health care managers and decision makers who are looking for ways to implement research findings in their organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Less than half of the patients with stroke in Australian hospitals are assessed by rehabilitation specialists. We sought to explore how clinicians working in acute stroke units (ASUs) determine which patients to refer to rehabilitation services.Method: Qualitative descriptive study. Team meetings were observed and medical records were reviewed over four weeks at two ASUs. Focus groups were conducted with staff from eight ASUs in two states of Australia.Results: Rehabilitation was mentioned in team meetings for 50/64 patients (78%) during the observation period. Rehabilitation referrals were organised for 47 patients (94%) for whom rehabilitation was discussed (74% of the sample); and for no patients when rehabilitation was not discussed. Factors identified that influenced whether referrals were organised included the anticipated discharge destination; severity of stroke; staff expectations of the patient’s recovery; and if there was advocacy by families about rehabilitation. Clinicians tended to refer the patients they considered would be accepted by the rehabilitation service. Staff at two ASUs expressed concern that referring all patients with stroke-related deficits to rehabilitation would be unfavourable with rehabilitation providers.Conclusions: Decisions made by ASU staff regarding who to refer to stroke rehabilitation are often not solely based on patients’ rehabilitation requirements.Implications for RehabilitationNot all patients on acute stroke units (ASUs) who may have benefited from rehabilitation were offered rehabilitation referrals.Criteria for rehabilitation referrals need to be made explicit and discussed openly with consumers, ASU clinicians and rehabilitation specialists.A change in rehabilitation assessment practices is required to provide data regarding the unmet rehabilitation needs of patients with stroke.New models of rehabilitation service delivery or increased rehabilitation services may be required to meet the rehabilitation needs of all patients with stroke. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Unequal access to inpatient rehabilitation after stroke has been reported. We sought to identify and compare patient and service factors associated with referral and admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) after acute hospital care for stroke in two countries with publicly-funded healthcare.Methods: We compared two cohorts of stroke patients admitted consecutively to eight acute public hospitals in Australia in 2013-2014 (n = 553), and to one large university hospital in Norway in 2012-2013 (n = 723). Outcomes were: referral to an IRF; admission to an IRF if referred. Logistic regression models were used to identify and compare factors associated with each outcome.Results: Participants were similar in both cohorts: mean age 73 years, 40-44% female, 12-13% intracerebral haemorrhage, ~ 77% mild stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale < 8). Services received during the acute admission differed (Australia vs. Norway): stroke unit treatment 82% vs. 97%, physiotherapy 93% vs. 79%, occupational therapy 83% vs. 77%, speech therapy 78% vs. 13%. Proportions referred to an IRF were: 48% (Australia) and 37% (Norway); proportions admitted: 35% (Australia) and 28% (Norway). Factors associated with referral in both countries were: moderately severe stroke, receiving stroke unit treatment or allied health assessments during the acute admission, living in the community, and independent pre-stroke mobility. Directions of associations were mostly congruent; however younger patients were more likely to be referred and admitted in Norway only. Models for admission among patients referred identified few associated factors suggesting that additional factors were important for this stage of the process.Conclusions: Similar factors were associated with referral to inpatient rehabilitation after acute stroke in both countries, despite differing service provision and access rates. Assuming it is not feasible to provide inpatient rehabilitation to all patients following stroke, the criteria for the selection of candidates need to be understood to address unwanted biases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the rehabilitation of stroke survivors in Australia as of November 2016. Topics covered include the unmet rehabilitation needs of survivors one year after stroke, determining whether patients are qualified for rehabilitation, and inconsistencies in data and time points across rehabilitation studies. Also noted are international initiatives in developing patient-centered outcome and standardised measures for research studies on stroke recovery.

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 theSouth 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 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.

Introduction: People with lived experience are rarely involved in implementation science research. This study was designed to assess the feasibility of codesigning and delivering implementation strategies with people with lived experience of stroke and health professionals to improve evidence-based stroke rehabilitation., Methods: We used Experience-Based CoDesign to design and deliver strategies to implement Stroke Clinical Guideline recommendations at one Australian inpatient stroke rehabilitation unit. Workgroups were formed with health professionals and people with 6-12 months experience of living with stroke (survivors and carers). Feasibility of the codesign approach (focusing on acceptability, implementation fidelity, signal of promise) was evaluated using mixed methods, using data from interviews, observations and inpatient self-reported outcomes., Results: Of 18 people with stroke invited, eight (44%) agreed to join the lived experience workgroup. All disciplines with ≥1 full-time staff members on the stroke unit were represented on the health professional workgroup. Median workgroup attendance over 6 months was n = 8 health professionals, n = 4 survivors of stroke and n = 1 carers. Workgroup members agreed to focus on two Guideline recommendations: information provision and amount of therapy. Workgroup members indicated that the codesign approach was enjoyable and facilitated effective partnerships between health professionals and lived experience workgroup members. Both cohorts reported contributing valuable input to all stages of the project, with responsibility shifting between groups at different project stages. The codesigned strategies signalled promise for improving aspects of information provision and creating additional opportunities for therapy. We could not compare patient-reported outcomes before and after the implementation period due to high variability between the preimplementation and postimplementation patient cohorts., Conclusion: It is feasible to codesign implementation strategies in inpatient rehabilitation with people with lived experience of stroke and health professionals. More research is required to determine the effect of the codesigned strategies on patient and service outcomes., Patient or Public Contribution: People with lived experience of stroke codesigned and evaluated implementation strategies. Author F. C. has lived experience of stroke and being an inpatient at the inpatient rehabilitation service, and has provided input into analysis of the findings and preparation of this manuscript., (© 2023 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Improving physical activity levels and diet quality are important for secondary stroke prevention., Aim: To test the feasibility and safety of 6-month, co-designed telehealth-delivered interventions to increase physical activity and improve diet quality., Methods: A 2 × 2 factorial trial (physical activity (PA); diet (DIET); PA + DIET; control) randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint trial. Primary outcomes were feasibility and safety. Secondary outcomes included stroke risk factors (blood pressure, self-report PA (International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)) and diet quality (Australian Recommended Food Score (ARFS)), and quality of life. Between-group differences were analyzed using linear-mixed models., Results: Over 23 months, 99 people were screened for participation and 40 (40%) randomized (3 months to 10 years post-stroke, mean age 59 (16) years). Six participants withdrew, and an additional five were lost to follow-up. Fifteen serious adverse events were reported, but none were deemed definitely or probably related to the intervention. Median attendance was 32 (of 36) PA sessions and 9 (of 10) DIET sessions. The proportion of missing primary outcome data (blood pressure) was 3% at 3 months, 11% at 6 months, and 14% at 12 months. Between-group 95% confidence intervals showed promising, clinically relevant differences in support of the interventions across the range of PA, diet quality, and blood pressure outcomes., Conclusion: Our telehealth PA and diet interventions were safe and feasible and may have led to significant behavior change., Trial Registration: ACTRN12620000189921., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

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., (© 2023 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Research impact is an emerging measure of research achievement alongside traditional academic outputs such as publications. We present the results of applying the Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research (FAIT) to the Centre for Research Excellence (CRE) in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery (CRE-Stroke, 2014-2019) and report on the feasibility and lessons from the application of FAIT to a CRE rather than a discrete research project., Methods: Data were gathered via online surveys, in-depth interviews, document analysis and review of relevant websites/databases to report on the three major FAIT methods: the modified Payback Framework, an assessment of costs against monetized consequences, and a narrative account of the impact generated from CRE-Stroke activities. FAIT was applied during the last 4 years of CRE-Stroke operation., Results: With an economic investment of AU$ 3.9 million over 5 years, CRE-Stroke delivered a return on investment that included AU$ 18.8 million in leveraged grants, fellowships and consultancies. Collectively, CRE-Stroke members produced 354 publications that were accessed 470,000 times and cited over 7220 times. CRE-Stroke supported 26 PhDs, 39 postdocs and seven novice clinician researchers. There were 59 capacity-building events benefiting 744 individuals including policy-makers and consumers. CRE-Stroke created research infrastructure (including a research register of stroke survivors and a brain biobank), and its global leadership produced international consensus recommendations to influence the stroke research landscape worldwide. Members contributed to the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines: four researchers' outputs were directly referenced. Based only on the consequences that could be monetized, CRE-Stroke returned AU$ 4.82 for every dollar invested in the CRE., Conclusion: This case example in the developing field of impact assessment illustrates how researchers can use evidence to demonstrate and report the impact of and returns on research investment. The prospective application of FAIT by a dedicated research impact team demonstrated impact in broad categories of knowledge-gain, capacity-building, new infrastructure, input to policy and economic benefits. The methods can be used by other research teams to provide comprehensive evidence to governments and other research funders about what has been generated from their research investment but requires dedicated resources to complete., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: The National Stroke Audit has been used to audit and provide feedback to health professionals and stroke care services in Australia since 2007. The Australian Stroke Clinical Registry was piloted in 2009 and numbers of hospitals participating in the registry are increasing. Considering the changing data landscape in Australia, we designed this study to evaluate the stroke audit and to inform strategic direction., Methods: We conducted a rapid review of published literature to map features of successful data programmes, followed by a mixed-methods study, comprising national surveys and interviews with clinicians and administrators about the stroke audit. We analysed quantitative data descriptively and analysed open-ended survey responses and interview data using qualitative content analysis. We integrated data from the two sources., Results: We identified 47 Australian data programs, successful programs were usually funded by government sources or professional associations and typically provided twice yearly or yearly reports.106 survey participants, 14 clinician and 5 health administrator interview participants were included in the evaluation. The Stroke Audit was consistently perceived as useful for benchmarking, but there were mixed views about its value for local quality improvement. Time to enter data was the most frequently reported barrier to participation (88% of survey participants), due to the large number of datapoints and features of the audit software.Opportunities to improve the Stroke Audit included refining Audit questions, developing ways to automatically export data from electronic medical records and capturing accurate data for patients who transferred between hospitals., Conclusion: While the Stroke Audit was not perceived by all users to be beneficial for traditional quality improvement purposes, the ability to benchmark national stroke services and use these data in advocacy activities was a consistently reported benefit. Modifications were suggested to improve usability and usefulness for participating sites., Competing Interests: Competing interests: This evaluation was commissioned by Stroke Foundation, which oversees the National Stroke Audit. The authors received payment from Stroke Foundation via their university and conducted the evaluation independent from Stroke Foundation., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: We explored the perspectives of professionals working in health and aged care services in South Australia about factors that influenced successful transitions from hospital to home or residential aged care home for older people. We examined successful and recommended strategies that could support safe transitions following hospital discharge and reduce avoidable hospital admissions in South Australia., Methods: Nineteen professionals from acute, post-acute, primary, community and aged care settings in South Australia participated in semi-structured interviews. Qualitative content analysis was conducted., Results: Participants reported that navigating service provision could be difficult, compounded by different funding arrangements for hospitals, community, primary care and aged care services. Some participants felt that there was an over-reliance on the hospital sector, leaving primary care and community-based services under-utilised to support hospital transitions. The importance of good communication between services and sectors was highlighted. Participants described different categories of services that supported safe transitions by supporting older people immediately post-discharge; services that provided support to stay at home in the weeks and months following discharge; and services that helped the person receive health care at locations other than hospitals or emergency departments when they were unwell. Participants noted that successful programs were not always maintained., Conclusions: Division of responsibility of aged and health-care services between state and national governance contributes to fragmentation of care in South Australia. Careful planning of transitions and coordination of services across sectors is required to ensure older people are supported in the months following discharge from hospital to reduce avoidable rehospitalisations., (© 2022 AJA Inc'.)

Objective: Western Sydney University has implemented a rural interprofessional learning programme to promote collaborative care approaches to enhance cross-discipline communications, improve knowledge and clarity of roles and improve patient care and outcomes., Design: Rural interprofessinal learning is an interprofessional educational approach, consisting of simulations of complex health events. Simulation methodology frames the study with a focus on human interaction. A mixed-methods evaluation has been conducted, incorporating pre- and post- event participant surveys along with semi-structured focus groups., Setting: Simulations are conducted in the rural setting, including community settings, working farms and rural hospitals., Main Outcome Measures: Reflexive thematic analysis was used to identify themes measuring students' perceptions of interdisciplinary care, knowlede of other health discipline roles and skills and how they believe the exercise will influence their future practice. Facilitator feedback regarding the efficacy of the simulations was also recorded and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis., Participants: Care of simulated patient(s)/bystander(s) is primarily provided by paramedicine, nursing and medical students; however, increasing interest has expanded the programme to include students from a range of allied health professions. Simulations are facilitated by a multidisciplinary team of experienced practitioners and specialists., Intervention: Four rural interprofessional learning events have been held., Results: 120 students have participated in the evaluation. Findings include increased understanding of the contributions of other disciplines in enhancing patient care, team approaches, cross-discipline communication and a need to engage in collaborative care in future practice., Conclusion: Creating a collaborative learning environment creates a culture of multidisciplinary care, enhancing patient care and improving outcomes. The rural interprofessional learning model is an effective interprofessional educational approach, which can be repeated, refined and improved for continual professional development., (© 2021 National Rural Health Alliance Inc.)

Objective: There is a growing need for researchers to demonstrate impact, which is reliant on successful research translation. The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council funded a Centre of Research Excellence in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery (CRE-Stroke) to enhance collaborations between researchers conducting different types of stroke rehabilitation research. The purpose of this study was to explore opinions about research translation held by CRE-Stroke researchers conducting preclinical and clinical research, in terms of scope, importance, responsibility and perceived skills and knowledge., Design: Mixed-methods study, comprising a paper-based survey and semistructured interviews. Interview data were inductively coded and thematically analysed. Survey and interview data were compared and synthesised., Participants: 55 (7 preclinical, 48 clinical) researchers attending a CRE-Stroke research forum completed a paper-based survey. Semistructured interviews with 22 CRE-Stroke (5 preclinical, 17 clinical) researchers were conducted., Results: Research translation was described as translating to other research and translating to clinical practice and policy. Most researchers (n=54, 98%) reported that research translation was important, particularly in terms of generating research impact, but the most common sign of project completion reported by researchers (n=7, 100% preclinical; n=37, 77% clinical) was publication. Most researchers (preclinical n=4, 57%; clinical n=37, 77%) reported having responsibility for translating research, but less than half reported having the necessary skills (n=1, 14% preclinical; n=17, 35% clinical) and knowledge (n=3, 43% preclinical; n=19, 40% clinical). Differing opinions about who should be responsible for translating findings to clinical practice were expressed., Conclusions: Stroke rehabilitation researchers appear confident to translate their research via the traditional mechanism of publications. To optimise impact, clarity is needed regarding who is best placed to translate research findings to clinical practice and policy. Education and skills development to apply broader translation processes are needed to maximise the use of research at all stages., Competing Interests: Competing interests: EAL was employed by CRE-Stroke at the time data were collected and analysed., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: There is growing recognition that the wider benefits of research (economic, social and health impacts) should be assessed and valued alongside traditional research performance metrics such as peer-reviewed papers. Translation of findings into policy and practice needs to accelerate and pathways to impact need to be better understood. This research protocol outlines a mixed methods study to apply the Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research (FAIT) to the Centre for Research Excellence in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery (CRE-Stroke). FAIT is purpose-designed to encourage research translation and assess research impact but lacks validation., Methods/design: Phase 1 involves application of the FAIT-modified programme logic model to each CRE-Stroke research stream including identifying process, output and impact metrics, as well as end users of the research. A scoping review will inform potential impacts anticipated from CRE-Stroke. In Phase 2, audit and feedback on achievements against plans will track and encourage research translation. Logic models will be updated to account for changes in the research pathways over time. In Phase 3, three proven methods for measuring research impact - Payback, economic assessment and narratives - will be applied to each research stream and the data triangulated and reported in Phase 4. The feasibility of applying FAIT will also be assessed as part of Phase 3., Discussion: Use of prospective, comprehensive research impact frameworks for large interdisciplinary programmes of research is rare. FAIT's application to CRE-Stroke will provide opportunity for the impact of CRE-Stroke to be assessed and a range of impacts beyond standard academic achievements to be reliably reported. The feasibility of FAIT's application will also be assessed and, if necessary, refined. The usefulness of FAIT for encouraging research translation will also be described and may prove useful for other programmes looking to implement a research impact framework.

Background: We sought to determine whether Australasian health professionals' opinions regarding early mobilization after stroke changed between 2008 and 2014, when a large international trial of early mobilization (A Very Early Rehabilitation Trial, AVERT) was underway., Methods: Attendees at the two major Australasian stroke conferences in 2008 and 2014 were surveyed. Participants rated their agreement with statements about the risks and benefits of commencing mobilization within 24 hours of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke using a 5-point Likert scale. Participants in 2014 were asked about their awareness of AVERT. Logistic regressions were performed to determine whether the time point (2008 versus 2014) or awareness of AVERT influenced opinions about early mobilization., Results: Surveys were completed by 443 health professionals (2008: N = 202; 2014: N = 241). Most respondents in 2014 reported that early mobilization was beneficial and not harmful to people with ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. Opinions regarding mobilization after ischemic stroke did not change significantly between 2008 and 2014. In 2014, a significantly greater proportion of respondents believed that early mobilization after hemorrhagic stroke was helpful (2008: n = 98 of 202 [49%] versus 2014: n = 170 of 241 [71%], P < .01). Awareness of AVERT was significantly associated with the opinion that early mobilization was beneficial and not harmful to patients with stroke (P < .05)., Conclusions: Australasian health professionals' opinions of early mobilization after hemorrhagic stroke changed between 2008 and 2014, prior to reporting of the AVERT trial. Our results suggest that awareness of an ongoing research trial can lead to changes in opinions before the efficacy of the experimental intervention is known., (Copyright © 2017 National Stroke Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To examine the frequency and factors associated with patients with stroke in Australian hospitals receiving documented rehabilitation assessments; to examine the criteria used when rehabilitation was not recommended; and to examine whether being assessed for rehabilitation affected access to rehabilitation., Design: Retrospective medical record audit of patients with a diagnosis of stroke who were discharged consecutively between 2013 and 2014., Setting: Acute care public hospitals., Participants: Adults with stroke (N=333) receiving care in participating hospitals., Interventions: Not applicable., Main Outcome Measure: Documented assessment regarding patient suitability for rehabilitation during acute hospitalization., Results: Data from 292 patients were included for analysis (60% men; mean age, 72y). Of the patients, 42% were assessed for rehabilitation by a health professional providing care in the hospital, 43% were assessed for rehabilitation by a representative from a rehabilitation service, and 37% did not receive any documented rehabilitation assessment. In multivariable analysis, patients were significantly more likely to be assessed for rehabilitation if they lived in the community before their stroke, had moderate severity strokes, or received occupational therapy during hospital admission. Rehabilitation was not recommended in 9% of assessments despite the presence of stroke-related symptoms. Patients not assessed for rehabilitation were significantly less likely to access rehabilitation than patients who were assessed., Conclusions: More than one third of patients were not assessed for rehabilitation. When assessed, rehabilitation was not consistently recommended for patients with stroke-related symptoms. This study highlights factors that increase the likelihood of being assessed for rehabilitation., (Copyright © 2015 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The aim of this study was to seek opinions regarding the perceived advantages and disadvantages of the two main models of clinical education used in Australia. A questionnaire was designed specifically for this study and distributed to physiotherapists involved in clinical education at health units throughout Australia. There were 343 respondents (giving an approximate response rate of 74.5%). In most health units (78.4%) the model of clinical education currently used involves a number of physiotherapists sharing responsibility for the clinical education of students (SR model). Only a minority reported employing a designated clinical educator (DCE) to provide clinical education. Overall, respondents preferred the DCE model to the SR model. The perceived advantages of the DCE model included an increased time to devote to clinical education, improved consistency of supervision and decreased stress levels for staff.