Understanding the Role of External Facilitation to Drive Quality Improvement for Stroke Care in Hospitals

The use of external facilitation within the context of multicomponent quality improvement interventions (mQI) is growing. We aimed to evaluate the influence of external facilitation for improving the quality of acute stroke care. Clinicians from hospitals participating in mQI (Queensland, Australia) as part of the Stroke123 study were supported by external facilitators in a single, on-site workshop to review hospital performance against eight clinical processes of care (PoCs) collected in the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (AuSCR) and develop an action plan. Remote support (i.e., telephone/email) after the workshop was provided. As part of a process evaluation for Stroke123, we recorded the number and mode of contacts between clinicians and facilitators; type of support provided; and frequency of self-directed, hospital-level stroke registry data reviews. Analysis: We measured the association between amount/type of external facilitation, (i) development of action plans, and (ii) adherence to PoCs before and after the intervention using AuSCR data from 2010 to 2015. In total, 14/19 hospitals developed an action plan. There was no significant difference in amount or type of external facilitator support provided between hospitals that did, and did not, develop an action plan. There was no relationship between the amount of external facilitation and change in adherence to PoCs. Most (95%) hospitals accessed stroke registry performance data. In the Stroke123 study, the amount or type of external facilitation did not influence action plan development, and the amount of support did not influence the changes achieved in adherence to PoCs. Remote support may not add value for mQI

Correction to: Hospital organizational context and delivery of evidence-based stroke care: a cross-sectional study

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported an error in one of the authors’ names. In this Correction the incorrect and correct author name are shown. The original article has been corrected

Disparities in Antihypertensive Prescribing After Stroke: Linked Data From the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry

Background and Purpose- Despite evidence to support the prescription of antihypertensive medications before hospital discharge to promote medication adherence and prevent recurrent events, many patients with stroke miss out on these medications at discharge. We aimed to examine patient, clinical, and system-level differences in the prescription of antihypertensive medications at hospital discharge after stroke. Methods- Adults with acute ischemic stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage alive at discharge were included (years 2009-2013) from 39 hospitals participating in the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry. Patient comorbidities were identified using the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (Tenth Edition, Australian Modification) codes from the hospital admissions and emergency presentation data. The outcome variable and other system factors were derived from the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry dataset. Multivariable, multilevel logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with the prescription of antihypertensive medications at hospital discharge. Results- Of the 10 315 patients included, 79.0% (intracerebral hemorrhage, 74.1%; acute ischemic stroke, 79.8%) were prescribed antihypertensive medications at discharge. Prescription varied between hospital sites, with 6 sites >2 SDs below the national average for provision of antihypertensives at discharge. Prescription was also independently associated with patient and clinical factors including history of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, management in an acute stroke unit, and discharge to rehabilitation. In patients with acute ischemic stroke, females (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.94), those who had greater stroke severity (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% CI 0.72-0.92), or dementia (odds ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52-0.81) were less likely to be prescribed. Conclusions- Prescription of antihypertensive medications poststroke varies between hospitals and according to patient factors including age, sex, stroke severity, and comorbidity profile. Implementation of targeted quality improvement initiatives at local hospitals may help to reduce the variation in prescription observed

Multicenter, Prospective, Controlled, Before-and-After, Quality Improvement Study (Stroke123) of Acute Stroke Care

Background and Purpose: Hospital uptake of evidence-based stroke care is variable. We aimed to determine the impact of a multicomponent program involving financial incentives and quality improvement interventions, on stroke care processes. Methods: A prospective study of interventions to improve clinical care quality indicators at 19 hospitals in Queensland, Australia, during 2010 to 2015, compared with historical controls and 23 other Australian hospitals. After baseline routine audit and feedback (control phase, 30 months), interventions involving financial incentives (21 months) and then addition of externally facilitated quality improvement workshops with action plan development (9 months) were implemented. Postintervention phase was 13 months. Data were obtained for the analysis from a previous continuous audit in Queensland and subsequently the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry. Primary outcome: change in median composite score for adherence to 8 indicators. Secondary outcomes: change in adherence to self-selected indicators addressed in action plans and 4 national indicators compared with other Australian hospitals. Multivariable analyses with adjustment for clustered data.Results There were 17502 patients from the intervention sites (median age, 74 years; 46% women) and 20484 patients from other Australian hospitals. Patient characteristics were similar between groups. There was an 18% improvement in the primary outcome across the study periods (95% CI, 12%-24%). The largest improvement was following introduction of financial incentives (14%; 95% CI, 8%-20%), while indicators addressed in action plans provided an 8% improvement (95% CI, 1%-17%). The national score (4 indicators) improved by 17% (95% CI, 13%-20%) versus 0% change in other Australian hospitals (95% CI, -0.03 to 0.03). Access to stroke units improved more in Queensland than in other Australian hospitals (