Search

Background: Stroke is the most common neurological disability in the UK. Any activity contributes to recovery, but stroke patients can be inactive for > 60% of their waking hours. This problem remains, despite organisational changes and targeted interventions. A new approach to addressing post-stroke inactivity is needed. Experience-based co-design has successfully initiated improvements for patients and staff in other acute settings. Experience-based co-design uses observational fieldwork and filmed narratives with patients to trigger different conversations and interactions between patients and staff to improve health-care services. Objectives: To complete a rapid evidence synthesis of the efficacy and effectiveness of co-production as an approach to quality improvement in acute health-care settings; to evaluate the feasibility and impact of patients, carers and staff co-producing and implementing interventions to increase supervised and independent therapeutic patient activity in acute stroke units; and to understand the experience of participating in experience-based co-design and whether or not interventions developed and implemented in two units could transfer to two additional units using an accelerated experience-based co-design cycle. Design: A mixed-methods case comparison using interviews, observations, behavioural mapping and self-report surveys (patient-reported outcome measure/patient-reported experience measure) pre and post implementation of experience-based co-design cycles, and a process evaluation informed by normalisation process theory. Setting: The setting was two stroke units (acute and rehabilitation) in London and two in Yorkshire. Participants: In total, 130 staff, 76 stroke patients and 47 carers took part. Findings: The rapid evidence synthesis showed a lack of rigorous evaluation of co-produced interventions in acute health care, and the need for a robust critique of co-production approaches. Interviews and observations (365 hours) identified that it was feasible to co-produce and implement interventions to increase activity in priority areas including ‘space’ (environment), ‘activity’ and, to a lesser extent, ‘communication’. Patients and families reported benefits from participating in co-design and perceived that they were equal and valued members. Staff perceived that experience-based co-design provided a positive experience, was a valuable improvement approach and led to increased activity opportunities. Observations and interviews confirmed the use of new social spaces and increased activity opportunities. However, staff interactions remained largely task focused, with limited focus on enabling patient activity. Behavioural mapping indicated a mixed pattern of activity pre and post implementation of co-designed changes. Patient-reported outcome measure/patient-reported experience measure response rates were low, at 12–38%; pre- and post-experience-based co-design cohorts reported dependency, emotional and social limitations consistent with national statistics. Post-experience-based co-design patient-reported experience measure data indicated that more respondents reported that they had ‘enough things to do in their free time’. The use of experience-based co-design – full and accelerated – legitimised and supported co-production activity. Staff, patients and families played a pivotal role in intervention co-design. All participants recognised that increased activity should be embedded in everyday routines and in work on stroke units. Limitations: Communication by staff that enabled patient activity was challenging to initiate and sustain. Conclusions: It was feasible to implement experience-based co-design in stroke units. This resulted in some positive changes in unit environments and increased activity opportunities for patients. There was no discernible difference in experiences or outcomes between full and accelerated experience-based co-design. Future work should consider multiple ways to embed increased patient activity into everyday routines in stroke units. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 35. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: The government response to the care failures at the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust led to the policy imperative of ‘regular interaction and engagement between nurses and patients’ (Francis R. Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry. London: The Stationery Office; 2013. © Crown copyright 2013. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0) in the NHS. The pressure on nursing to act resulted in the introduction of the US model, known as ‘intentional rounding’, into nursing practice. This is a timed, planned intervention that sets out to address fundamental elements of nursing care by means of a regular bedside ward round. Objectives: The study aims were to examine what it is about intentional rounding in hospital wards that works, for whom and in what circumstances. Design: A multimethod study design was undertaken using realist evaluation methodology. The study was conducted in four phases: (1) theory development; (2) a national survey of all NHS acute trusts in England; (3) in-depth case studies of six wards, involving individual interviews, observations, retrieval of routinely collected ward outcome data and analysis of costs; and (4) synthesis of the study findings. Setting: The study was conducted in acute NHS trusts in England. Participants: A total of 108 acute NHS trusts participated in the survey. Seventeen senior managers, 33 front-line nurses, 28 non-nursing professionals, 34 patients and 28 carers participated in individual interviews. Thirty-nine members of nursing staff were shadowed during their delivery of intentional rounding and the direct care received by 28 patients was observed. Review methods: A realist synthesis was undertaken to identify eight context–mechanism–outcome configurations, which were tested and refined using evidence collected in subsequent research phases. Results: The national survey showed that 97% of NHS trusts had implemented intentional rounding in some way. Data synthesis from survey, observation and interview findings showed that only two of the original eight mechanisms were partially activated (consistency and comprehensiveness, and accountability). The evidence for two mechanisms was inconclusive (visibility of nurses and anticipation); there was minimal evidence for one mechanism (multidisciplinary teamwork and communication) and no evidence for the remaining three (allocated time to care, nurse–patient relationships and communication, and patient empowerment). A total of 240 intentional rounds were observed within 188 hours of care delivery observation. Although 86% of all intentional rounding interactions were observed to be documented, fidelity to the original intervention [i.e. the Studer Group protocol (Studer Group. Best Practices: Sacred Heart Hospital, Pensacola, Florida. Hourly Rounding Supplement. Gulf Breeze, FL: Studer Group; 2007)] was generally low. Limitations: Intentional rounding was often difficult for researchers to observe, as it was rarely delivered as a discrete activity but instead undertaken alongside other nursing activities. Furthermore, a lack of findings about the influence of intentional rounding on patient outcomes in the safety thermometer data limits inferences on how mechanisms link to clinical outcomes for patients. Conclusions: The evidence from this study demonstrates that the effectiveness of intentional rounding, as currently implemented and adapted in England, is very weak and falls short of the theoretically informed mechanisms. There was ambivalence and concern expressed that intentional rounding oversimplifies nursing, privileges a transactional and prescriptive approach over relational nursing care, and prioritises accountability and risk management above individual responsive care. Future work: It is suggested that the insights and messages from this study inform a national conversation about whether or not intentional rounding is the optimum intervention to support the delivery of fundamental nursing care to patients, or if the time is right to shape alternative solutions. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.