Why do patients with stroke not receive the recommended amount of active therapy (ReAcT)? Study protocol for a multisite case study investigation

Introduction Increased frequency and intensity of inpatient therapy contributes to improved outcomes for stroke survivors. Differences exist in the amount of therapy provided internationally. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland it is recommended that a minimum of 45 min of each active therapy should be provided at least 5 days a week provided the therapy is appropriate and that the patient can tolerate this. Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme (2014) data demonstrate this standard is not being achieved for most patients. No research been undertaken to explore how therapists in England manage their practice to meet time-specific therapy recommendations. The ReAcT study aims to develop an in-depth understanding of stroke therapy provision, including how the guideline of 45 min a day of each relevant therapy, is interpreted and implemented by therapists, and how it is experienced by stroke-survivors and their families. Methods and analysis A multisite ethnographic case study design in a minimum of six stroke units will include modified process mapping, observations of service organisation, therapy delivery and documentary analysis. Semistructured interviews with therapists and service managers (n=90), and with patients and informal carers (n=60 pairs) will be conducted. Data will be analysed using the Framework approach. Ethics and dissemination The study received a favourable ethical opinion via the National Research Ethics Service (reference number: 14/NW/0266). Participants will provide written informed consent or, where stroke-survivors lack capacity, a consultee declaration will be sought. ReAcT is designed to generate insights into the organisational, professional, social, practical and patient-related factors acting as facilitators or barriers to providing the recommended amount of therapy. Provisional recommendations will be debated in consensus meetings with stakeholders who have not participated in ReAcT case studies or interviews. Final recommendations will be disseminated to therapists, service managers, clinical guideline developers and policymakers and stroke-survivors and informal carers

Assessing the suitability of written stroke materials: an evaluation of the interrater reliability of the suitability assessment of materials (SAM) checklist

Purpose: Written materials are frequently used to provide education to stroke patients and their carers. However, poor quality materials are a barrier to effective information provision. A quick and reliable method of evaluating material quality is needed. This study evaluated the interrater reliability of the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) checklist in a sample of written stroke education materials. Methods: Two independent raters evaluated the materials (n = 25) using the SAM, and ratings were analyzed to reveal total percentage agreements and weighted kappa values for individual items and overall SAM rating. Results: The majority of the individual SAM items had high interrater reliability, with 17 of the 22 items achieving substantial, almost perfect, or perfect weighted kappa value scores. The overall SAM rating achieved a weighted kappa value of 0.60, with a percentage total agreement of 96%. Conclusion: Health care professionals should evaluate the content and design characteristics of written education materials before using them with patients. A tool such as the SAM checklist can be used; however, raters should exercise caution when interpreting results from items with more subjective scoring criteria. Refinements to the scoring criteria for these items are recommended. The value of the SAM is that it can be used to identify specific elements that should be modified before education materials are provided to patients

What’s in a name? The challenge of describing interventions in systematic reviews: analysis of a random sample of reviews of non-pharmacological stroke interventions

Objective: To assess, in a sample of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions, the completeness of intervention reporting, identify the most frequently missing elements, and assess review authors’ use of and beliefs about providing intervention information. Design: Analysis of a random sample of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological stroke interventions; online survey of review authors. Data sources and study selection: The Cochrane Library and PubMed were searched for potentially eligible systematic reviews and a random sample of these assessed for eligibility until 60 (30 Cochrane, 30 non-Cochrane) eligible reviews were identified. Data collection: In each review, the completeness of the intervention description in each eligible trial (n=568) was assessed by 2 independent raters using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. All review authors (n=46) were invited to complete a survey. Results: Most reviews were missing intervention information for the majority of items. The most incompletely described items were: modifications, fidelity, materials, procedure and tailoring (missing from all interventions in 97%, 90%, 88%, 83% and 83% of reviews, respectively). Items that scored better, but were still incomplete for the majority of reviews, were: ‘when and how much’ (in 31% of reviews, adequate for all trials; in 57% of reviews, adequate for some trials); intervention mode (in 22% of reviews, adequate for all trials; in 38%, adequate for some trials); and location (in 19% of reviews, adequate for all trials). Of the 33 (71%) authors who responded, 58% reported having further intervention information but not including it, and 70% tried to obtain information. Conclusions: Most focus on intervention reporting has been directed at trials. Poor intervention reporting in stroke systematic reviews is prevalent, compounded by poor trial reporting. Without adequate intervention descriptions, the conduct, usability and interpretation of reviews are restricted and therefore, require action by trialists, systematic reviewers, peer reviewers and editors

Challenges in building interpersonal care in organised hospital stroke units: the perspectives of stroke survivors, family caregivers and the multidisciplinary team

Aims To explore the organised stroke unit experience from the multiple perspectives of stroke survivor, family carer and the multi-disciplinary team. Background Organised stroke unit care reduces morbidity, mortality and institutionalisation and is promoted globally as the most effective form of acute and post-acute provision. Little research has focused upon how care is experienced in this setting from the perspectives of those who receive and provide care. Design The study used a qualitative approach, employing Framework Analysis. This methodology allows for a flexible approach to data collection and a comprehensive and systematic method of analysis. Method Semi-structured interviews were undertaken during 2011 and 2012 with former stroke unit stroke survivors, family carers and senior stroke physicians. In addition eight focus groups were conducted with members of the multi-disciplinary team. Results One hundred and twenty five participants were recruited. Three key themes were identified across all data sets. Firstly, two important processes are described: responses to the impact of stroke; seeking information and stroke specific knowledge. These are underpinned by a third theme: the challenge in building relationships in organised stroke unit care. Conclusions Stroke unit care provides satisfaction for stroke survivors, particularly in relation to highly specialised medical and nursing care and therapy. It is proposed that moves towards organised stroke unit care, particularly with the emphasis on reduction of length of stay and a focus on hyper-acute models, have implications for interpersonal care practices and the sharing of stroke specific knowledge

Task-specific reach-to-grasp training after stroke: Development and description of a home-based intervention

© The Author(s) 2015. This series of articles for rehabilitation in practice aims to cover a knowledge element of the rehabilitation medicine curriculum. Nevertheless they are intended to be of interest to a multidisciplinary audience. The competency addressed in this article is to transparently describe the process of developing a complex intervention for people after stroke as part of a feasibility randomised controlled trial. Objective: To describe and justify the development of a home-based, task-specific upper limb training intervention to improve reach-to-grasp after stroke and pilot it for feasibility and acceptability prior to a randomized controlled trial. Intervention description: The intervention is based on intensive practice of whole reach-to-grasp tasks and part-practice of essential reach-to-grasp components. A 'pilot' manual of activities covering the domains of self-care, leisure and productivity was developed for the feasibility study. The intervention comprises 14 hours of therapist-delivered sessions over six weeks, with additional self-practice recommended for 42 hours (i.e. one hour every day). As part of a feasibility randomized controlled trial, 24 people with a wide range of upper limb impairment after stroke experienced the intervention to test adherence and acceptability. The median number of repetitions in one-hour therapist-delivered sessions was 157 (interquartile range IQR 96-211). The amount of self-practice was poorly documented. Where recorded, the median amount of practice was 30 minutes (interquartile range 22-45) per day. Findings demonstrated that the majority of participants found the intensity, content and level of difficulty of the intervention acceptable, and the programme to be beneficial. Comments on the content and presentation of the self-practice material were incorporated in a revised 'final' intervention manual. Discussion: A comprehensive training intervention to improve reach-to-grasp for people living at home after stroke has been described in accordance with the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) reporting guidelines. The intervention has been piloted, and found to be acceptable and feasible in the home setting. Trial registration: ISRCTN5671658

Fever, hyperglycaemia and swallowing dysfunction management in acute stroke: A cluster randomised controlled trial of knowledge transfer

Background: Hyperglycaemia, fever, and swallowing dysfunction are poorly managed in the admission phase of acute stroke, and patient outcomes are compromised. Use of evidence-based guidelines could improve care but have not been effectively implemented. Our study aims to develop and trial an intervention based on multidisciplinary team-building to improve management of fever, hyperglycaemia, and swallowing dysfunction in patients following acute stroke. Methods and design: Metropolitan acute stroke units (ASUs) located in New South Wales, Australia will be stratified by service category (A or B) and, within strata, by baseline patient recruitment numbers (high or low) in this prospective, multicentre, single-blind, cluster randomised controlled trial (CRCT). ASUs then will be randomised independently to either intervention or control groups. ASUs allocated to the intervention group will receive: unit-based workshops to identify local barriers and enablers; a standardised core education program; evidence-based clinical treatment protocols; and ongoing engagement of local staff. Control group ASUs will receive only an abridged version of the National Clinical Guidelines for Acute Stroke Management. The following outcome measures will be collected at 90 days post-hospital admission: patient death, disability (modified Rankin Score); dependency (Barthel Index) and Health Status (SF-36). Additional measures include: performance of swallowing screening within 24 hours of admission; glycaemic control and temperature control. Discussion: This is a unique study of research transfer in acute stroke. Providing optimal inpatient care during the admission phase is essential if we are to combat the rising incidence of debilitating stroke. Our CRCT will also allow us to test interventions focussed on multidisciplinary ASU teams rather than individual disciplines, an imperative of modern hospital services

Biopsychosocial intervention for stroke carers (BISC): results of a feasibility randomised controlled trial and nested qualitative interview study

Objective: To determine the feasibility of recruiting to and delivering a biopsychosocial intervention for carers of stroke survivors. Design: Feasibility randomised controlled study with nested qualitative interview study. Setting: The intervention was delivered in the community in either a group or one-to-one format. Subjects: Carers and stroke survivors within one year of stroke onset. Interventions: A carer targeted intervention delivered by a research psychologist in six structured two-hour sessions or usual care control. The intervention combined education about the biological, psychological and social effects of stroke with strategies and techniques focussing on adjustment to stroke and caregiving. Stroke survivors in both groups received baseline and follow-up assessment but no intervention. Main Outcome: Recruitment rate, study attrition, fidelity of intervention delivery, acceptability and sensitivity of outcome measures used (health related quality of life, anxiety and depression and carer burden six months after randomisation). Results: Of the 257 carers approached, 41 consented. Six withdrew before randomisation. Eighteen participants were randomised to receive the intervention and 17 to usual care. Attendance at sessions was greater when treated one-to-one. Feedback interviews suggested that participants found the intervention acceptable and peer support particularly helpful in normalising their feelings. Thirty participants were assessed at follow-up with improvements from baseline on all health measures for both groups. Conclusions: Our results suggest that a biopsychosocial intervention was acceptable to carers and can be delivered in group and one-to-one formats. Timing of approach and mode of intervention delivery is critical and requires tailoring to the carers individual needs

Synthesising practice guidelines for the development of community-based exercise programmes after stroke

This is a freely-available open access publication. Please cite the published version which is available via the DOI link in this record.Multiple guidelines are often available to inform practice in complex interventions. Guidance implementation may be facilitated if it is tailored to particular clinical issues and contexts. It should also aim to specify all elements of interventions that may mediate and modify effectiveness, including both their content and delivery. We conducted a focused synthesis of recommendations from stroke practice guidelines to produce a structured and comprehensive account to facilitate the development of community-based exercise programmes after stroke.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for the South West Peninsul

Patients' age as a determinant of care received following acute stroke: A systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Evidence-based care should improve acute stroke outcomes with the same magnitude of effect for stroke patients of all ages. However, there is evidence to suggest that, in some instances, older stroke patients may receive poorer quality care than younger patients.</p> <p>Our aim was to systematically review evidence of the quality of care provided to patients with acute stroke related to their age. Quality of care was determined by compliance with recommended care processes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We systematically searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, ISI Web of Knowledge, Ageline and the Cochrane Library databases to identify publications (1995-2009) that reported data on acute stroke care process indicators by patient age. Data extracted included patient demographics and process indicator compliance. Included publications were critically appraised by two independent reviewers using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool, and a comparison was made of the risk of bias according to studies' findings. The evidence base for reported process indicators was determined, and meta-analysis was undertaken for studies with sufficient similarity.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Nine from 163 potential studies met the inclusion criteria. Of the 56 process indicators reported, eleven indicators were evidence-based. Seven of these indicators (64%) showed significantly poorer care for older patients compared to younger ones, while younger patients received comparatively inferior care for only antihypertensive therapy at discharge. Our findings are limited by the variable methodological quality of included studies.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Patients' age may be a factor in the care they receive after an acute stroke. However, the possible influence of patients' age on clinicians' decision-making must be considered in terms of the many complex issues that surround the provision of optimal care for older patients with acute stroke.</p