Search

Background: The role of stroke nurses in patient selection and administration of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt‐PA) for acute ischaemic stroke is evolving. Objectives: To compare differences in stroke nurses' practices related to rt‐PA administration in Australia and the United Kingdom (UK) and to examine whether these differences influence rt‐PA treatment rates. Methods: A cross‐sectional, self‐administered questionnaire administered to a lead stroke clinician from hospitals known to provide rt‐PA for acute ischaemic stroke. Chi‐square tests were used to analyse between‐country differences in ten pre‐specified rt‐PA practices. Non‐parametric equality of medians test was used to assess within‐country differences for likelihood of undertaking practices and association with rt‐PA treatment rates. Reporting followed STROBE checklist. Results: Response rate 68%; (Australia: 74% [n = 63/85]; UK: 65% [n = 93/144]). There were significant differences between countries for 7/10 practices. UK nurses were more likely to: request CT scan; screen patient for rt‐PA suitability; gain informed consent; use telemedicine to assess, diagnose or treat; assist in the decision for rt‐PA with Emergency Department physician or neurologist; and undergo training in rt‐PA administration. Reported median hospital rt‐PA treatment rates were 12% in the UK and 7.8% in Australia: (7.8%). In Australia, there was an association between higher treatment rates and nurses involvement in 5/10 practices; read and interpret CT scans; screen patient for rt‐PA suitability; gain informed consent; assess suitability for rt‐PA with neurologist/stroke physician; undergo training in rt‐PA administration. There was no relationship between UK treatment rates and likelihood of a stroke nurse to undertake any of the ten rt‐PA practices. Conclusion: Stroke nurses' active role in rt‐PA administration can improve rt‐PA treatment rates. Models of care that broaden stroke nurses' scope of practice to maximise rt‐PA treatment rates for ischaemic stroke patients are needed. Relevance to clinical practice: This study demonstrates that UK and Australian nurses play an important role in thrombolysis practices; however, they are underused. Formalising and extending the role of stroke nurses in rt‐PA administration could potentially increase thrombolysis rates with clinical benefits for patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Theoretical frameworks and models based on behaviour change theories are increasingly used in the development of implementation interventions. Development of an implementation intervention is often based on the available evidence base and practical issues, i.e. feasibility and acceptability. The aim of this study was to describe the development of an implementation intervention for the T3 Trial (Triage, Treatment and Transfer of patients with stroke in emergency departments (EDs)) using theory to recommend behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and drawing on the research evidence base and practical issues of feasibility and acceptability.Methods: A stepped method for developing complex interventions based on theory, evidence and practical issues was adapted using the following steps: (1) Who needs to do what, differently? (2) Using a theoretical framework, which barriers and enablers need to be addressed? (3) Which intervention components (behaviour change techniques and mode(s) of delivery) could overcome the modifiable barriers and enhance the enablers? A researcher panel was convened to review the list of BCTs recommended for use and to identify the most feasible and acceptable techniques to adopt.Results: Seventy-six barriers were reported by hospital staff who attended the workshops (step 1: thirteen TDF domains likely to influence the implementation of the T3 Trial clinical intervention were identified by the researchers; step 2: the researcher panellists then selected one third of the BCTs recommended for use as appropriate for the clinical context of the ED and, using the enabler workshop data, devised enabling strategies for each of the selected BCTs; and step 3: the final implementation intervention consisted of 27 BCTs).Conclusions: The TDF was successfully applied in all steps of developing an implementation intervention for the T3 Trial clinical intervention. The use of researcher panel opinion was an essential part of the BCT selection process to incorporate both research evidence and expert judgment. It is recommended that this stepped approach (theory, evidence and practical issues of feasibility and acceptability) is used to develop highly reportable implementation interventions. The classifying of BCTs using recognised implementation intervention components will facilitate generalisability and sharing across different conditions and clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Theoretical frameworks and models based on behaviour change theories are increasingly used in the development of implementation interventions. Development of an implementation intervention is often based on the available evidence base and practical issues, i.e. feasibility and acceptability. The aim of this study was to describe the development of an implementation intervention for the T 3 Trial (Triage, Treatment and Transfer of patients with stroke in emergency departments (EDs)) using theory to recommend behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and drawing on the research evidence base and practical issues of feasibility and acceptability., Methods: A stepped method for developing complex interventions based on theory, evidence and practical issues was adapted using the following steps: (1) Who needs to do what, differently? (2) Using a theoretical framework, which barriers and enablers need to be addressed? (3) Which intervention components (behaviour change techniques and mode(s) of delivery) could overcome the modifiable barriers and enhance the enablers? A researcher panel was convened to review the list of BCTs recommended for use and to identify the most feasible and acceptable techniques to adopt., Results: Seventy-six barriers were reported by hospital staff who attended the workshops (step 1: thirteen TDF domains likely to influence the implementation of the T 3 Trial clinical intervention were identified by the researchers; step 2: the researcher panellists then selected one third of the BCTs recommended for use as appropriate for the clinical context of the ED and, using the enabler workshop data, devised enabling strategies for each of the selected BCTs; and step 3: the final implementation intervention consisted of 27 BCTs)., Conclusions: The TDF was successfully applied in all steps of developing an implementation intervention for the T 3 Trial clinical intervention. The use of researcher panel opinion was an essential part of the BCT selection process to incorporate both research evidence and expert judgment. It is recommended that this stepped approach (theory, evidence and practical issues of feasibility and acceptability) is used to develop highly reportable implementation interventions. The classifying of BCTs using recognised implementation intervention components will facilitate generalisability and sharing across different conditions and clinical settings.