Search

Abstract Background Organised stroke care saves lives and reduces disability. A clinical pathway might be a form of organised stroke care, but the evidence for the effectiveness of this model of care is limited. Methods This study was a retrospective audit study of consecutive stroke admissions in the setting of an acute general medical unit in a district general hospital. The case-notes of patients admitted with stroke for a 6-month period before and after introduction of the pathway, were reviewed to determine data on length of stay, outcome, functional status, (Barthel Index, BI and Modified Rankin Scale, MRS), Oxfordshire Community Stroke Project (OCSP) sub-type, use of investigations, specific management issues and secondary prevention strategies. Logistic regression was used to adjust for differences in case-mix. Results N = 77 (prior to the pathway) and 76 (following the pathway). The median (interquartile range, IQR) age was 78 years (67.75–84.25), 88% were European NZ and 37% were male. The median (IQR) BI at admission for the pre-pathway group was less than the post-pathway group: 6 (0–13.5) vs. 10 (4–15.5), p = 0.018 but other baseline variables were statistically similar. There were no significant differences between any of the outcome or process of care variables, except that echocardiograms were done less frequently after the pathway was introduced. A good outcome (MRS Conclusion A clinical pathway for acute stroke management appeared to have no benefit for the outcome or processes of care and may even have been associated with worse outcomes. These data support the conclusions of a recent Cochrane review.

BackgroundStroke systems of care differ between larger urban and smaller rural settings and it is unclear to what extent this may impact on patient outcomes. Ethnicity influences stroke risk factors and care delivery as well as patient outcomes in nonstroke settings. Little is known about the impact of ethnicity on poststroke care, especially in Māori and Pacific populations. ObjectiveOur goal is to describe the protocol for the Reducing Ethnic and Geographic Inequities to Optimise New Zealand Stroke Care (REGIONS Care) study. MethodsThis large, nationwide observational study assesses the impact of rurality and ethnicity on best practice stroke care access and outcomes involving all 28 New Zealand hospitals caring for stroke patients, by capturing every stroke patient admitted to hospital during the 2017-2018 study period. In addition, it explores current access barriers through consumer focus groups and consumer, carer, clinician, manager, and policy-maker surveys. It also assesses the economic impact of care provided at different types of hospitals and to patients of different ethnicities and explores the cost-efficacy of individual interventions and care bundles. Finally, it compares manual data collection to routine health administrative data and explores the feasibility of developing outcome models using only administrative data and the cost-efficacy of using additional manually collected registry data. Regarding sample size estimates, in Part 1, Study A, 2400 participants are needed to identify a 10% difference between up to four geographic subgroups at 90% power with an α value of .05 and 10% to 20% loss to follow-up. In Part 1, Study B, a sample of 7645 participants was expected to include an estimated 850 Māori and 419 Pacific patients and to provide over 90% and over 80% power, respectively. Regarding Part 2, 50% of the patient or carer surveys, 40 provider surveys, and 10 focus groups were needed to achieve saturation of themes. The main outcome is the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include mRS scores; EQ-5D-3L (5-dimension, 3-level EuroQol questionnaire) scores; stroke recurrence; vascular events; death; readmission at 3, 6, and 12 months; cost of care; and themes around access barriers. ResultsThe study is underway, with national and institutional ethics approvals in place. A total of 2379 patients have been recruited for Part 1, Study A; 6837 patients have been recruited for Part 1, Study B; 10 focus groups have been conducted and 70 surveys have been completed in Part 2. Data collection has essentially been completed, including follow-up assessment; however, primary and secondary analyses, data linkage, data validation, and health economics analysis are still underway. ConclusionsThe methods of this study may provide the basis for future epidemiological studies that will guide care improvements in other countries and populations. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/25374

This review looks at poliomyelitis from the perspective of rehabilitation clinicians, covering issues of pathophysiology, impairments, and problems of functioning. The authors attempt to pick a path through some of the controversy around "post-polio syndrome" and suggest an overall framework for considering people with problems many years after episodes of poliomyelitis. On the basis of that framework, the authors offer suggestions for the management of this group of people, in the hope that the broad principles apply equally well to many other people with chronic disabling conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of people with stroke and their whānau on barriers to accessing best practice care across Aotearoa, and to brainstorm potential solutions., Method: We conducted ten focus groups nationwide and completed a thematic analysis., Results: Analysis of the data collected from the focus groups identified five themes: (1) inconsistencies in stroke care; (2) importance of effective communication; (3) the role of whānau support; (4) the need for more person rather than stroke centred processes; and (5) experienced inequities. Participants also identified potential solutions., Conclusion: Key recommendations include the need for improved access to stroke unit care for rural residents, improved post-discharge support and care coordination involving the whānau, improved communication across the patient journey, and a concerted effort to improve culturally safe care. Next step is to implement and monitor these recommendations., Competing Interests: The study was funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand (HRC 17/037). Some of the authors receive other grant funding, but none that relates to this study, and report no competing interests.