21 research outputs found

    Challenges implementing a carer support intervention within a national stroke organisation: findings from the process evaluation of the OSCARSS trial.

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVES: To examine the implementation of an intervention to support informal caregivers and to help understand findings from the Organising Support for Carers of Stroke Survivors (OSCARSS) cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT). DESIGN: Longitudinal process evaluation using mixed methods. Normalisation process theory informed data collection and provided a sensitising framework for analysis. SETTING: Specialist stroke support services delivered primarily in the homes of informal carers of stroke survivors. PARTICIPANTS: OSCARSS cRCT participants including carers, staff, managers and senior leaders. INTERVENTION: The Carer Support Needs Assessment Tool for Stroke (CSNAT-Stroke) intervention is a staff-facilitated, carer-led approach to help identify, prioritise and address support needs. RESULTS: We conducted qualitative interviews with: OSCARSS cRCT carer participants (11 intervention, 10 control), staff (12 intervention, 8 control) and managers and senior leaders (11); and obtained 140 responses to an online staff survey over three separate time points. Both individual (carer/staff) and organisational factors impacted implementation of the CSNAT-Stroke intervention and how it was received by carers. We identified four themes: staff understanding, carer participation, implementation, and learning and support. Staff valued the idea of a structured approach to supporting carers, but key elements of the intervention were not routinely delivered. Carers did not necessarily identify as 'carers', which made it difficult for staff to engage them in the intervention. Despite organisational enthusiasm for OSCARSS, staff in the intervention arm perceived support and training for implementation of CSNAT-Stroke as delivered primarily by the research team, with few opportunities for shared learning across the organisation. CONCLUSIONS: We identified challenges across carer, staff and organisation levels that help explain the OSCARSS cRCT outcome. Ensuring training is translated into practice and ongoing organisational support would be required for full implementation of this type of intervention, with emphasis on the carer-led aspects, including supporting carer self-identification. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN58414120

    Organising Support for Carers of Stroke Survivors (OSCARSS): a cluster randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation.

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVE: Investigated clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a person-centred intervention for informal carers/caregivers of stroke survivors. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) with economic and process evaluation. SETTING: Clusters were services, from a UK voluntary sector specialist provider, delivering support primarily in the homes of stroke survivors and informal carers. PARTICIPANTS: Adult carers in participating clusters were referred to the study by cluster staff following initial support contact. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention was the Carer Support Needs Assessment Tool for Stroke: a staff-facilitated, carer-led approach to help identify, prioritise and address the specific support needs of carers. It required at least one face-to-face support contact dedicated to carers, with reviews as required. Control was usual care, which included carer support (unstructured and variable). OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants provided study entry and self-reported outcome data by postal questionnaires, 3 and 6 months after first contact by cluster staff. PRIMARY OUTCOME: 3-month caregiver strain (Family Appraisal of Caregiving Questionnaire, FACQ). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: FACQ subscales of caregiver distress and positive appraisals of caregiving, mood (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and satisfaction with stroke services (Pound). The economic evaluation included self-reported healthcare utilisation, intervention costs and EQ-5D-5L. RANDOMISATION AND MASKING: Clusters were recruited before randomisation to intervention or control, with stratification for size of service. Cluster staff could not be masked as training was required for participation. Carer research participants provided self-reported outcome data unaware of allocation; they consented to follow-up data collection only. RESULTS: Between 1 February 2017 and 31 July 2018, 35 randomised clusters (18 intervention; 17 control) recruited 414 cRCT carers (208 intervention; 206 control). Study entry characteristics were well balanced. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: intention-to-treat analysis for 84% retained participants (175 intervention; 174 control) found mean (SD) FACQ carer strain at 3 months to be 3.11 (0.87) in the control group compared with 3.03 (0.90) in the intervention group, adjusted mean difference of -0.04 (95% CI -0.20 to 0.13). Secondary outcomes had similarly small differences and tight CIs. Sensitivity analyses suggested robust findings. Intervention fidelity was not achieved. Intervention-related group costs were marginally higher with no additional health benefit observed on EQ-5D-5L. No adverse events were related to the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was not fully implemented in this pragmatic trial. As delivered, it conferred no clinical benefits and is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with usual care from a stroke specialist provider organisation. It remains unclear how best to support carers of stroke survivors. To overcome the implementation challenges of person-centred care in carers' research and service development, staff training and organisational support would need to be enhanced. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN58414120

    A study of prisms and therapy in attention loss after stroke (SPATIAL): A feasibility randomised controlled trial

    Get PDF
    Objective: Investigate feasibility and acceptability of prism adaptation training for people with inattention (spatial neglect), early after stroke, during usual care. Design: Phase II feasibility randomised controlled trial with 3:1 stratified allocation to standard occupational therapy with or without intervention, and nested process evaluation. Setting: Ten hospital sites providing in-patient stroke services. Participants: Screened positive for inattention more than one-week post-stroke; informal carers. Occupational therapists participated in qualitative interviews. Intervention: Adjunctive prism adaptation training at the start of standard occupational therapy sessions for three weeks. Main measures: Feasibility measures included recruitment and retention rates, intervention fidelity and attrition. Outcomes collected at baseline, 3 weeks and 12 weeks tested measures including Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale. Acceptability was explored through qualitative interviews and structured questions. Results: Eighty (31%) patients were eligible, 57 (71%) consented, 54 randomised (40:13, +1 exclusion) and 39 (74%) completed 12-week outcomes. Treatment fidelity was good: participants received median eight intervention sessions (IQR: 5, 12) lasting 4.7 min (IQR: 4.1, 5.0). All six serious adverse events were unrelated. There was no signal that patients allocated to intervention did better than controls. Twenty five of 35 recruited carers provided outcomes with excellent data completeness. Therapists, patients and carers found prism adaptation training acceptable. Conclusions: It is feasible and acceptable to conduct a high-quality definitive trial of prism adaptation training within occupational therapy early after stroke in usual care setting, but difficult to justify given no sign of benefit over standard occupational therapy. Clinical trial registration: https://www.isrctn.com/ Ref ISRCTN88395268

    Health care professionals’ views of the factors influencing the decision to refer patients to a stroke rehabilitation trial

    Get PDF
    Background: Effective recruitment is an essential element of successful research but notoriously difficult to achieve. This article examines health care professionals' views on the factors influencing decision-making regarding referral to a stroke rehabilitation trial. Methods: Semi-structured interviews and a card-sorting task were undertaken with stroke service staff in acute and community hospital trusts. Data analysis used a thematic framework approach. Results: Twenty-seven qualified health care professionals from 12 (6 acute and 6 community) hospital trusts and one charity participated. Four main factors emerged: patient-related, professional views, the organisation and research logistics, which all contributed to staff's decision about whether to refer patients to a trial. Clinicians identified patient-related factors as the most frequent influence and considered themselves the patients' advocate. They used their knowledge of the patient to anticipate the patients' reaction to possible participation and tended to only refer those whom they perceived would respond positively. Participants also identified experience of research, a sense of ownership of the project and a positive view of the intervention being evaluated as factors influencing referral. The need to prioritise clinical matters, meet managerial demands and cope with constant change were organisational factors impacting negatively on referral. Staff often simply forgot about recruitment in the face of other higher priorities. Quick, simple, flexible research processes that were closely aligned with existing ways of working were felt to facilitate recruitment. Conclusions: Patient- and professional-related factors were the most frequent influence on clinicians' recruitment decisions, which often had a 'gate-keeping' effect. Managerial and clinical responsibility to juggle multiple (often higher) priorities was also an important factor. To facilitate recruitment, researchers need to develop strategies to approach potential participants as directly as possible to enable them to make their own decisions about participation; ensure that research processes are as quick and simple as possible; align with existing clinical pathways and systems; and give regular reminders and ongoing support to promote recruitment

    How are balance and mobility problems after stroke treated in England? An observational study of the content, dose and context of physiotherapy

    No full text
    Objective: To describe the dose, intensity and context of physiotherapy for balance and mobility problems after stroke. Design: Process mapping to describe the context and non-participant observation of therapy sessions to describe the dose and content of therapy. Setting: Four inpatient stroke units in North-West England. Participants: Therapy staff and previously mobile stroke survivors who were treating, or receiving treatment for balance and mobility problems in the participating units. Results: Two units were stand-alone rehabilitation units; two offered a service at the weekends. One had no access to community-based rehabilitation. All had dedicated treatment facilities but often did not use them because of lack of space and difficulty transporting patients. Twenty-two patients participated and 100 treatment sessions were observed. Practicing walking, sit-to-stand and transfers were the most frequent objectives and interventions usually with the therapist(s) physically facilitating the patient’s movements. The dose of practise was low; mean repetitions of sit-to-stand per session was 5 (SD 6.4); mean time spent upright per session was 11.24 (SD = 7) minutes, and mean number of steps per session was 202 (SD 118). The mean number of staff per patient was 2.1 (SD = 0.6, mode = 2), usually involving two qualified therapists. Falls prevention or management, wheelchair skills and bed mobility were not practised. Conclusion: Stroke physiotherapy for balance and mobility problems features low-dose, low-intensity therapist-led practice, mainly of walking and sit-to-stand. Staff:patient ratios were high. Therapists need to organize treatment sessions to maximize the intensity of functional task practice.</p
    corecore