What is the impact of large-scale implementation of stroke Early Supported Discharge? A mixed methods realist evaluation study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Stroke Early Supported Discharge (ESD) is a service innovation that facilitates discharge from hospital and delivery of specialist rehabilitation in patients' homes. There is currently widespread implementation of ESD services in many countries, driven by robust clinical trial evidence. In England, the type of ESD service patients receive on the ground is variable, and in some regions, ESD is still not offered at all. This protocol presents a study designed to investigate the mechanisms and outcomes of implementing ESD at scale in real-world conditions. This will help to establish which models of ESD are most effective and in what context. METHODS: A realist evaluation approach composed of two interlinking work packages will be adopted to investigate how and why ESD works, for whom and in what circumstances. Work package 1 (WP1) will begin with a rapid evidence synthesis to formulate preliminary realist hypotheses. Quantitative analyses of historical prospective Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme (SSNAP) data will be performed to evaluate service outcomes based on the degree to which evidence-based ESD has been implemented. Work package 2 (WP2) will involve the qualitative investigation of purposively selected case study sites featuring in WP1 and covering different regions in England. The perspectives of clinicians, managers, commissioners, and service users will be explored qualitatively. Cost implications of ESD models will be examined using a cost-consequence analysis. Cross-case comparisons and triangulation of the data sources from both work packages will be performed to test, revise, and refine initial programme theories and address research aims. DISCUSSION: This study will investigate whether and how current large-scale implementation of ESD is achieving the outcomes suggested by the evidence base. The theory-driven evaluation approach will highlight key mechanisms and contextual conditions necessary to optimise outcomes and allow us to draw transferable lessons to inform the effective implementation and sustainability of ESD in clinical practice. In addition, the methodological framework will progress the theoretical understanding of implementation and evaluation of complex rehabilitation interventions in stroke care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 15568163, registration date: 26 October 2018

Impact of a Prior Cancer Diagnosis on Quality of Care and Survival Following Acute Myocardial Infarction: Retrospective Population-Based Cohort Study in England

Background: An increasing proportion of patients with cancer experience acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We investigated differences in quality of AMI care and survival between patients with and without previous cancer diagnoses. Methods: A retrospective cohort study using Virtual Cardio-Oncology Research Initiative data. Patients aged 40+ years hospitalized in England with AMI between January 2010 and March 2018 were assessed, ascertaining previous cancers diagnosed within 15 years. Multivariable regression was used to assess effects of cancer diagnosis, time, stage, and site on international quality indicators and mortality. Results: Of 512 388 patients with AMI (mean age, 69.3 years; 33.5% women), 42 187 (8.2%) had previous cancers. Patients with cancer had significantly lower use of ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (mean percentage point decrease [mppd], 2.6% [95% CI, 1.8–3.4]) and lower overall composite care (mppd, 1.2% [95% CI, 0.9–1.6]). Poorer quality indicator attainment was observed in patients with cancer diagnosed in the last year (mppd, 1.4% [95% CI, 1.8–1.0]), with later stage disease (mppd, 2.5% [95% CI, 3.3–1.4]), and with lung cancer (mppd, 2.2% [95% CI, 3.0–1.3]). Twelve-month all-cause survival was 90.5% in noncancer controls and 86.3% in adjusted counterfactual controls. Differences in post-AMI survival were driven by cancer-related deaths. Modeling improving quality indicator attainment to noncancer patient levels showed modest 12-month survival benefits (lung cancer, 0.6%; other cancers, 0.3%). Conclusions: Measures of quality of AMI care are poorer in patients with cancer, with lower use of secondary prevention medications. Findings are primarily driven by differences in age and comorbidities between cancer and noncancer populations and attenuated after adjustment. The largest impact was observed in recent cancer diagnoses (<1 year) and lung cancer. Further investigation will determine whether differences reflect appropriate management according to cancer prognosis or whether opportunities to improve AMI outcomes in patients with cancer exist.</p