Improving blood pressure control in primary care: The ImPress study

Background Hypertension is a preventable risk factor for cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of death globally. When hypertension is present with tobacco smoking, poor nutrition, physical inactivity or excessive alcohol consumption, risk of cardiovascular disease is increased. Given the prolonged engagement and ongoing relationship with patients, general practice nurses are ideally situated to actively engage with patients about optimal blood pressure control and lifestyle risk reduction. Objectives This study will test the effectiveness of a nurse-led intervention to reduce blood pressure in adults with hypertension and high cardiovascular risk. Design A multi-site, cluster randomised control trial where the general practice is the unit of randomisation. Methods General Practices (n = 20) will be block randomised to the intervention or usual care group. Adults with hypertension and high cardiovascular risk will be identified through an audit of electronic medical records and invited to attend an assessment visit. Eligible consenting patients will be recruited to the study. The intervention involves three face-to-face consultations and two telephone consultations with the nurse to assess lifestyle risk and develop an action plan. An appointment with the general practitioner will optimise pharmacotherapy. The primary outcome is blood pressure, with secondary outcomes of lifestyle risk factors; smoking, nutrition, alcohol and physical activity body mass index and medication adherence. Patients will have outcome measures evaluated at 6 and 12 months. Discussion ImPress is innovative in its proactive approach of identifying those at greatest risk of cardiovascular disease in combination with the emerging role of the general practice nurse to target care towards improved blood pressure control. If successful, findings from this trial could enhance the nursing role, improve health outcomes, inform health policy and provide an evidence base from which to transform blood pressure management in general practice

Fever, Hyperglycemia, and Swallowing Management in Stroke Unit and Non–Stroke-Unit European Hospitals : A Quality in Acute Stroke Care (QASC) Europe Substudy

Stroke unit care reduces patient morbidity and mortality. The Quality in Acute Stroke Care Europe Study achieved significant large-scale translation of nurse-initiated protocols to manage Fever, hyperglycemia (Sugar), and Swallowing (FeSS) in 64 hospitals across 17 European countries. However, not all hospitals had stroke units. Our study aimed to compare FeSS protocol adherence in stroke unit versus non–stroke-unit hospitals. METHODS: An observational study using Quality in Acute Stroke Care Europe Study postimplementation data was undertaken. Hospitals were categorized using 4 evidence-based characteristics for defining a stroke unit, collected from an organizational survey of participating hospitals. Differences in FeSS Protocol adherence between stroke unit and non–stroke-unit hospitals were investigated using mixed-effects logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex, and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale. RESULTS: Of the 56 hospitals from 16 countries providing organizational data, 34 (61%) met all 4 stroke unit characteristics, contributing data for 1825 of 2871 patients (64%) (stroke unit hospitals). Of the remaining 22 hospitals (39%), 17 (77%) met 3 of the 4 stroke unit characteristics (non–stroke-unit hospitals). There were no differences between hospitals with a stroke unit and those without for postimplementation adherence to fever (49% stroke unit vs 57% non–stroke unit; odds ratio [OR], 0.400; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.087-1.844; P = .240), hyperglycemia (50% stroke unit vs 57% non–stroke unit; OR, 0.403; 95% CI, 0.087–1.856; P = .243), swallowing (75% stroke unit vs 60% non–stroke unit; OR, 1.702; 95% CI, 0.643–4.502; P = .284), or overall FeSS Protocol adherence (36% stroke unit vs 36% non–stroke unit; OR, 0.466; 95% CI, 0.106–2.043; P = .311). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that the nurse-initiated FeSS Protocols can be implemented by hospitals regardless of stroke unit status. This is noteworthy because hospitals without stroke unit resources that care for acute stroke patients can potentially implement these protocols. Further effort is needed to ensure better adherence to the FeSS Protocols

Does the Addition of Non-Approved Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for rtPA Impact Treatment Rates? Findings in Australia, the UK, and the USA

Background: Strict criteria for recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) eligibility are stipulated on licences for use in ischaemic stroke, however, practitioners may also add non-standard rtPA criteria. We examined eligibility criteria variation in 3 English-speaking countries including use of non-standard criteria, in relation to rtPA treatment rates. Methods: Surveys were mailed to 566 eligible hospitals in Australia (AUS), United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (USA). Criteria were pre-classified as standard (approved indication and contraindications ) or non-standard (approved warning or researcher ‘decoy’). Percentage for criterion selection was calculated/compared; linear regression was used to assess the association between use of non-standard criteria and rtPA treatment rates, and to identify factors associated with addition of non-standard criteria. Results: Response rates were 74% AUS, 65% UK, and 68% USA; mean rtPA treatment rates were 8.7% AUS, 12.7% UK and 8.7% USA. Median percentage of non-standard inclusions was 33% (all 3 countries) and included National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores >4, computed tomography (CT) angiography documented occlusion, and favourable CT perfusion. Median percentage of non-standard exclusions was 25% AUS, 28% UK, and 60% USA, and included depressed consciousness, NIHSS>25, and use of antihypertensive infusions. No AUS or UK sites selected 100% of standard exclusions. Conclusions: Non-standard criteria for rtPA eligibility was evident in all three countries and could, in part, explain comparably low use of rtPA. Differences in the use of standard criteria may signify practitioner intolerance for those derived from original efficacy studies that are no longer relevant

Oral Care Practices in Stroke: Findings from the UK and Australia

Aims: To examine current practice, perceptions of healthcare professionals and factors affecting provision for oral care post-stroke in the UK and Australia. Background: Poor oral care has negative health consequences for people post-stroke. Little is known about oral care practice in hospital for people post-stroke and factors affecting provision in different countries. Design: A cross-sectional survey. Methods: Questionnaires were mailed to stroke specialist nurses in UK and Australian hospitals providing inpatient acute or rehabilitation care post-stroke. The survey was conducted between April and November 2019. Non-respondents were contacted up to five times. Results: Completed questionnaires were received from 150/174 (86%) hospitals in the UK, and 120/162 (74%) in Australia. A total of 52% of UK hospitals and 30% of Australian hospitals reported having a general oral care protocol, with 53% of UK and only 13% of Australian hospitals reporting using oral care assessment tools. Of those using oral care assessment tools, 50% of UK and 38% of Australian hospitals used local hospital-specific tools. Oral care assessments were undertaken on admission in 73% of UK and 57% of Australian hospitals. Staff had received oral care training in the last year in 55% of UK and 30% of Australian hospitals. Inadequate training and education on oral care for pre-registration nurses were reported by 63% of UK and 53% of Australian respondents. Conclusion: Unacceptable variability exists in oral care practices in hospital stroke care settings. Oral care could be improved by increasing training, performing individual assessments on admission, and using standardised assessment tools and protocols to guide high quality care. The study highlights the need for incorporating staff training and the use of oral care standardised assessments and protocols in stroke care in order to improve patient outcomes

Process evaluation of an implementation trial to improve the triage, treatment and transfer of stroke patients in emergency departments (T3 trial): a qualitative study

Background The implementation of evidence-based protocols for stroke management in the emergency department (ED) for the appropriate triage, administration of tissue plasminogen activator to eligible patients, management of fever, hyperglycaemia and swallowing, and prompt transfer to a stroke unit were evaluated in an Australian cluster-randomised trial (T3 trial) conducted at 26 emergency departments. There was no reduction in 90-day death or dependency nor improved processes of ED care. We conducted an a priori planned process influential factors that impacted upon protocol uptake. Methods Qualitative face-to-face interviews were conducted with purposively selected ED and stroke clinicians from two high- and two low-performing intervention sites about their views on factors that influenced protocol uptake. All Trial State Co-ordinators (n = 3) who supported the implementation at the 13 intervention sites were also interviewed. Data were analysed thematically using normalisation process theory as a sensitising framework to understand key findings, and compared and contrasted between interviewee groups. Results Twenty-five ED and stroke clinicians, and three Trial State Co-ordinators were interviewed. Three major themes represented key influences on evidence uptake: (i) Readiness to change: reflected strategies to mobilise and engage clinical teams to foster cognitive participation and collective action; (ii) Fidelity to the protocols: reflected that beliefs about the evidence underpinning the protocols impeded the development of a shared understanding about the applicability of the protocols in the ED context (coherence); and (iii) Boundaries of care: reflected that appraisal (reflexive monitoring) by ED and stroke teams about their respective boundaries of clinical practice impeded uptake of the protocols. Conclusions Despite initial high 'buy-in' from clinicians, a theoretically informed and comprehensive implementation strategy was unable to overcome system and clinician level barriers. Initiatives to drive change and integrate protocols rested largely with senior nurses who had to overcome contextual factors that fell outside their control, including low medical engagement, beliefs about the supporting evidence and perceptions of professional boundaries. To maximise uptake of evidence and adherence to intervention fidelity in complex clinical settings such as ED cost-effective strategies are needed to overcome these barriers.The T3 Trial was funded by a NHMRC Project Grant 1024812 (2012–2017). The following authors received research fellowship funding from the NHMRC: Dominique Cadilhac (co-funded with Heart Foundation: 1063761 and 1154273) and Chris Levi (Practitioner: 1043913). Jeremy Grimshaw holds a Canada Research Chair in Health Knowledge Transfer and Uptake. Non-material support provided by the trial sponsor, Australian Catholic University, to house members of the trial team including authors SM, SD, EM, RP, OF, VS and LC

Determinants of successful clinical networks : The conceptual framework and study protocol

Background Clinical networks are increasingly being viewed as an important strategy for increasing evidence-based practice and improving models of care, but success is variable and characteristics of networks with high impact are uncertain. This study takes advantage of the variability in the functioning and outcomes of networks supported by the Australian New South Wales (NSW) Agency for Clinical Innovation's non-mandatory model of clinical networks to investigate the factors that contribute to the success of clinical networks. Methods/Design The objective of this retrospective study is to examine the association between external support, organisational and program factors, and indicators of success among 19 clinical networks over a three-year period (2006-2008). The outcomes (health impact, system impact, programs implemented, engagement, user perception, and financial leverage) and explanatory factors will be collected using a web-based survey, interviews, and record review. An independent expert panel will provide judgements about the impact or extent of each network's initiatives on health and system impacts. The ratings of the expert panel will be the outcome used in multivariable analyses. Following the rating of network success, a qualitative study will be conducted to provide a more in-depth examination of the most successful networks. Discussion This is the first study to combine quantitative and qualitative methods to examine the factors that contribute to the success of clinical networks and, more generally, is the largest study of clinical networks undertaken. The adaptation of expert panel methods to rate the impacts of networks is the methodological innovation of this study. The proposed project will identify the conditions that should be established or encouraged by agencies developing clinical networks and will be of immediate use in forming strategies and programs to maximise the effectiveness of such networks

Pressure RElieving Support SUrfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background Pressure ulcers represent a major burden to patients, carers and the healthcare system, affecting approximately 1 in 17 hospital and 1 in 20 community patients. They impact greatly on an individual’s functional status and health-related quality of life. The mainstay of pressure ulcer prevention practice is the provision of pressure redistribution support surfaces and patient repositioning. The aim of the PRESSURE 2 study is to compare the two main mattress types utilised within the NHS: high-specification foam and alternating pressure mattresses, in the prevention of pressure ulcers. Methods/Design PRESSURE 2 is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, double triangular, group sequential, parallel group trial. A maximum of 2954 ‘high-risk’ patients with evidence of acute illness will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive either a high-specification foam mattress or alternating-pressure mattress in conjunction with an electric profiling bed frame. The primary objective of the trial is to compare mattresses in terms of the time to developing a new Category 2 or above pressure ulcer by 30 days post end of treatment phase. Secondary endpoints include time to developing new Category 1 and 3 or above pressure ulcers, time to healing of pre-existing Category 2 pressure ulcers, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness, incidence of mattress change and safety. Validation objectives are to determine the responsiveness of the Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life-Prevention instrument and the feasibility of having a blinded endpoint assessment using photography. The trial will have a maximum of three planned analyses with unequally spaced reviews at event-driven coherent cut-points. The futility boundaries are constructed as non-binding to allow a decision for stopping early to be overruled by the Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee. Discussion The double triangular, group sequential design of the PRESSURE 2 trial will provide an efficient design through the possibility of early stopping for demonstrating either superiority, inferiority of mattresses or futility of the trial. The trial optimises the potential for producing robust clinical evidence on the effectiveness of two commonly used mattresses in clinical practice earlier than in a conventional design