Search

Patients and carers frequently report dissatisfaction with post-stroke information provision. This study aimed to develop an in-depth understanding of the factors influencing provision of information about recovery in stroke units. Focused ethnographic case-studies in two UK stroke units, including non-participant observations and semi-structured interviews with professionals, patients and carers, and documentary analysis. A Framework approach to analysis was undertaken. Twenty patients, 17 carers and 47 professionals participated. The unpredictable recovery trajectory led professionals to present prognostic estimates as uncertain possibilities. The need to maintain patients' motivation limited sharing of negative predictions, and generic information over-emphasised the importance of therapy in recovery. A structured multidisciplinary team approach to delivering information improved consistency. Complex clinical reasoning was required to identify and meet patients' needs. Hospital environments and routines restricted opportunities for dialogue, particularly with carers. The process of providing information about post-stroke recovery is complex, requiring enhanced clinical reasoning and communication. The challenges faced by professionals are numerous and if not addressed can result in suboptimal provision. Practice implications: Professionals should develop a co-ordinated multidisciplinary approach to information provision; and engage in dialogue to ensure a tailored approach to identifying and meeting patients' and carers' information needs. • Stroke unit patients and carers report dissatisfaction with recovery information. • Ethnographic methods facilitated in-depth exploration of information provision. • A wide range of factors influence provision of recovery information. • A co-ordinated multidisciplinary approach can facilitate information provision. • Staff training is required to support effective delivery and improve confidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To identify why the National Clinical Guideline recommendation of 45 minutes of each appropriate therapy daily is not met in many English stroke units. Design: Mixed-methods case-study evaluation, including modified process mapping, non-participant observations of service organisation and therapy delivery, documentary analysis and semi-structured interviews. Setting: Eight stroke units in four English regions. Subjects: Seventy-seven patients with stroke, 53 carers and 197 stroke unit staff were observed; 49 patients, 50 carers and 131 staff participants were interviewed. Results: Over 1000 hours of non-participant observations and 433 patient-specific therapy observations were undertaken. The most significant factor influencing amount and frequency of therapy provided was the time therapists routinely spent, individually and collectively, in information exchange. Patient factors, including fatigue and tolerance influenced therapists' decisions about frequency and intensity, typically resulting in adaptation of therapy rather than no provision. Limited use of individual patient therapy timetables was evident. Therapist staffing levels were associated with differences in therapy provision but were not the main determinant of intensity and frequency. Few therapists demonstrated understanding of the evidence underpinning recommendations for increased therapy frequency and intensity. Units delivering more therapy had undertaken patient-focused reorganisation of therapists' working practices, enabling them to provide therapy consistent with guideline recommendations. Conclusion: Time spent in information exchange impacted on therapy provision in stroke units. Reorganisation of therapists' work improved alignment with guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The use of standardised outcome measures is an integral part of stroke rehabilitation and is widely recommended as good practice. However, little is known about how measures are actually used or their impact. This study aimed to identify current clinical practice; how healthcare professionals working in stroke rehabilitation use outcome measures and their perceptions of the benefits and barriers to use. Method: Eighty-four Health Care Professionals and 12 service managers and commissioners working in stroke services across a large UK county were surveyed by postal questionnaire. Results: Ninety-six percent of clinical respondents used at least one measure, however, less than half used measures regularly during a patient's stay. The mean number of tools used was 3.2 (SD = 1.9). Eighty-one different tools were identified; 16 of which were unpublished and unvalidated. Perceived barriers in using outcome measures in day-to-day clinical practice included lack of resources (time and training) and lack of knowledge of appropriate measures. Benefits identified were to demonstrate the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions and monitor patients' progress. Conclusions: Although the use of outcome measures is prevalent in clinical practice, there is little consistency in the tools utilised. The term 'outcome measures' is used, but staff rarely used the measures at appropriate time points to formally assess and evaluate outcome. The term 'measurement tool' more accurately reflects the purposes to which they were put and potential benefits. Further research to overcome the barriers in using standardised measurement tools and evaluate the impact of implementation on clinical practice is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Whilst pathways relating to the early stages of stroke care have become well established, strategies for longer-term care are less developed and longer-term outcomes remain poor for many stroke survivors. New Start, a complex intervention that includes needs identification, exploration of social networks and components of problem-solving and self-management, was designed to improve stroke survivors' quality of life by addressing unmet needs and increasing participation. It is delivered approximately 6 months post-stroke by trained staff (facilitators). We are currently undertaking a cluster randomised feasibility trial of the New Start intervention with an embedded process evaluation, which is an important component of the design and testing of complex interventions as it provides an understanding of how interventions are delivered and function in different settings.Methods/design: This mixed methods process evaluation will explore the degree to which New Start is implemented as intended, the impact of context on intervention delivery and the acceptability of the intervention for stroke survivors, their families and practitioners. It will include non-participant observation of facilitator training and intervention delivery. Interviews with stroke survivors, facilitators and other relevant staff (including administrators and managerial staff) will be undertaken. Qualitative data from interview transcripts, facilitator reflections and observational field notes will be analysed thematically alongside numerical data documenting intervention delivery collected as part of the trial.Discussion: This process evaluation will identify factors that aid and impede implementation of the New Start intervention and improve understanding of this novel approach to longer-term stroke care.Trial Registration: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN38920246 . Registered on 22 June 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Sedentary behaviour (sitting or lying during waking hours without being otherwise active) is strongly associated with adverse health outcomes, including all-cause, cancer and cardiovascular mortality in adults. Stroke survivors are consistently reported as being more sedentary than healthy age-matched controls, spending more hours sedentary daily and sustaining longer unbroken bouts of sedentary time. An evidence-based and clinically feasible intervention ('Get Set Go') was developed. A pragmatic definitive trial to evaluate Get Set Go was planned; however, due to the unprecedented effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on National Health Service (NHS) services this study was reduced in size and scope to become an external pilot trial. We report the protocol for this external pilot trial, which aims to undertake a preliminary exploration of whether Get Set Go is likely to improve ability to complete extended activities of daily living in the first year post-stroke and inform future trial designs in stroke rehabilitation., Methods and Analysis: This study is a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluations. UK-based stroke services will be randomised 1:1 to the intervention (usual care plus Get Set Go) or control (usual care) arm. Fifteen stroke services will recruit 300-400 stroke inpatient and carer participants, with follow-up at 6, 12 and 24 months. The proposed primary endpoint is stroke survivor self-reported Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale at 12 months. Endpoint analyses will be exploratory and provide preliminary estimates of intervention effect. The process evaluation will provide valuable information on intervention fidelity, acceptability and how it can be optimised., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has been approved by Yorkshire and The Humber - Bradford-Leeds Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 19/YH/0403). Results will be disseminated through journal publications and conference presentations., Trial Registration Number: This trial was registered prospectively on 01 April 2020 (ISRCTN ref: ISRCTN82280581)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AFo has received additional research grant support from NIHR through the following funding streams: Senior Investigator award, Health Technology Assessment and Health and Social Care Delivery Research (HS&DR). AFo has previously received support from the Stroke Association to attend the UK stroke forum and received payment from the National Institute for Health (USA) for panel membership (2021 and 2022). AFo is currently the chair/a member of the programme steering committees for NIHR research programmes (Grant reference numbers: NIHR 202339 and NIHR 202020) and has served on the following panels: NIHR Doctoral Fellowships, NIHR senior investigators committee (2019/2020), NIHR HS&DR committee (2016–2018) and Stroke Association Funding. CE has received grant funding from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NOW) Taskforce for Applied Research (SIA RAAK) for work in a similar area (ie, sitting less and moving more after stroke) and is a non-executive Director representing interests of Research and Chair of Research Advisory Committee for the Stroke Foundation of Australia (unpaid). CFF is a co-investigator/collaborator on other grants on the topic of sedentary behaviour/physical activity and is therefore partially supported by grant funding received from the University of Edinburgh and the Irish Health Board. CE has previously been supported to conduct work in a similar area by grant funding received from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government, Medical Research Council Public Health Intervention Development award and the University of Edinburgh., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To review and synthesise qualitative literature relating to the views, perceptions and experiences of patients with acquired neurological conditions and their caregivers about the process of receiving information about recovery; as well as the views and experiences of healthcare professionals involved in delivering this information., Design: Systematic review of qualitative studies., Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science and the Cochrane library were searched from their inception to July 2019., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers extracted data from the included studies and assessed quality using an established tool. Thematic synthesis was used to synthesise the findings of included studies., Results: Searches yielded 9105 titles, with 145 retained for full-text screening. Twenty-eight studies (30 papers) from eight countries were included. Inductive analysis resulted in 11 descriptive themes, from which 5 analytical themes were generated: the right information at the right time; managing expectations; it's not what you say, it's how you say it; learning how to talk about recovery and manage emotions; the context of uncertainty., Conclusions: Our findings highlight the inherent challenges in talking about recovery in an emotional context, where breaking bad news is a key feature. Future interventions should focus on preparing staff to meet patients' and families' information needs, as well as ensuring they have the skills to discuss potential recovery and break bad news compassionately and share the uncertain trajectory characteristic of acquired neurological conditions. An agreed team-based approach to talking about recovery is recommended to ensure consistency and improve the experiences of patients and their families., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)