Search

Background Emergency departments (ED) are challenging environments but critical for early management of patients with stroke. Purpose To identify how context affects the provision of stroke care in 26 Australian EDs. Method Nurses perceptions of ED context was assessed with the Alberta Context Tool. Medical records were audited for quality of stroke care and patient outcomes. Findings Collectively, emergency nurses (n = 558) rated context positively with several nurse and hospital characteristics impacting these ratings. Despite these positive ratings, regression analysis showed no significant differences in the quality of stroke care (n = 1591 patients) and death or dependency (n = 1165 patients) for patients in EDs with high or low rated context. Discussion Future assessments of ED context may need to examine contextual factors beyond the scope of the Alberta Context Tool which may play an important role for the understanding of stroke care and patient outcomes in EDs.

Background The role of stroke nurses in patient selection and administration of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) for acute ischaemic stroke is evolving. Objectives To compare differences in stroke nurses' practices related to rt-PA administration in Australia and the United Kingdom (UK) and to examine whether these differences influence rt-PA treatment rates. Methods A cross-sectional, self-administered questionnaire administered to a lead stroke clinician from hospitals known to provide rt-PA for acute ischaemic stroke. Chi-square tests were used to analyse between-country differences in ten pre-specified rt-PA practices. Non-parametric equality of medians test was used to assess within-country differences for likelihood of undertaking practices and association with rt-PA treatment rates. Reporting followed STROBE checklist. Results Response rate 68%; (Australia: 74% [n = 63/85]; UK: 65% [n = 93/144]). There were significant differences between countries for 7/10 practices. UK nurses were more likely to: request CT scan; screen patient for rt-PA suitability; gain informed consent; use telemedicine to assess, diagnose or treat; assist in the decision for rt-PA with Emergency Department physician or neurologist; and undergo training in rt-PA administration. Reported median hospital rt-PA treatment rates were 12% in the UK and 7.8% in Australia: (7.8%). In Australia, there was an association between higher treatment rates and nurses involvement in 5/10 practices; read and interpret CT scans; screen patient for rt-PA suitability; gain informed consent; assess suitability for rt-PA with neurologist/stroke physician; undergo training in rt-PA administration. There was no relationship between UK treatment rates and likelihood of a stroke nurse to undertake any of the ten rt-PA practices. Conclusion Stroke nurses' active role in rt-PA administration can improve rt-PA treatment rates. Models of care that broaden stroke nurses' scope of practice to maximise rt-PA treatment rates for ischaemic stroke patients are needed. Relevance to clinical practice This study demonstrates that UK and Australian nurses play an important role in thrombolysis practices; however, they are underused. Formalising and extending the role of stroke nurses in rt-PA administration could potentially increase thrombolysis rates with clinical benefits for patients.

Background The Quality in Acute Stroke Care Trial implemented nurse-initiated protocols to manage fever, hyperglycaemia and swallowing (Fever, Sugar, Swallow clinical protocols) achieving a 16% absolute improvement in death and dependency 90-day post-stroke. Objective To examine associations between 90-day death and dependency, and monitoring and treatment processes of in-hospital nursing stroke care targeted in the trial. Design Secondary data analysis from a single-blind cluster randomised control trial. Setting 19 acute stroke units in New South Wales, Australia. Participants English-speakers ≥18 years with ischaemic stroke or intracerebral haemorrhage arriving at participating stroke units

Background Uptake of proven interventions requires dedicated resources that may only result in local implementation, thus precluding international practice change. We explored international uptake through online dissemination of the fever, sugar, and swallow (FeSS) protocols from the Quality in Acute Stroke Care (QASC) trial, which showed decreased death and dependency by 15.7% 90-day poststroke. Aims To identify: (a) the clinical discipline of healthcare professionals who downloaded the QASC resources; (b) the purpose for downloading; (c) successful implementation of any or all the FeSS protocols; (d) barriers to implementation; and (e) associations with self-reported successful implementation. Methods A cross-sectional, online survey of those who downloaded the QASC resources between October 2011 and August 2013. Associations between implementation and participant characteristics were determined. Results One-hundred and fifty-nine people from 21 countries participated. Nurses were the largest group to download the resources (n = 54, 38%), with the primary purpose to inform clinical practice (n = 97, 64%). Less than half (n = 77, 48%) downloaded, and less than a quarter (n = 38, 24%) attempted to implement all three protocols. Of those personally involved in implementation (n = 50) half reported doing so successfully for one or more protocols (n = 27, 54%) with 10 (20%) reporting successful implementation of all three protocols. Only about half (n = 13, 48%) used the proven implementation strategy with about one-third (n = 10, 29%) confirming successful uptake via audit. Implementation barriers were potential increase in nursing workload (n = 28, 56%) and lack of medical staff engagement (n = 27, 53%). Higher autonomy was associated with greater likelihood of implementation of all three protocols (p = .038). Linking Evidence to Action The QASC intervention required use of all three protocols. However, less than half downloaded them all and implementation was not guided by the proven implementation strategy. While encouraging that these resources were being used to drive practice change, piecemeal implementation of a proven intervention is unlikely to improve patient outcomes.

Background Multiple barriers may inhibit the adoption of clinical interventions and impede successful implementation. Use of standardised methods to prioritise barriers to target when selecting implementation interventions is an understudied area of implementation research. The aim of this study was to describe a method to identify and prioritise barriers to the implementation of clinical practice elements which were used to inform the development of the T3 trial implementation intervention (Triage, Treatment [thrombolysis administration; monitoring and management of temperature, blood glucose levels, and swallowing difficulties] and Transfer of stroke patients from Emergency Departments [ED]). Methods A survey was developed based on a literature review and data from a complementary trial to identify the commonly reported barriers for the nine T3 clinical care elements. This was administered via a web-based questionnaire to a purposive sample of Australian multidisciplinary clinicians and managers in acute stroke care. The questionnaire addressed barriers to each of the nine T3 trial clinical care elements. Participants produced two ranked lists: on their perception of: firstly, how influential each barrier was in preventing clinicians from performing the clinical care element (influence attribute); and secondly how difficult the barrier was to overcome (difficulty attribute). The rankings for both influence and difficulty were combined to classify the barriers according to three categories (‘least desirable’, desirable’ or ‘most desirable’ to target) to assist interpretation. Results All invited participants completed the survey; (n = 17; 35% medical, 35% nursing, 18% speech pathology, 12% bed managers). The barriers classified as most desirable to target and overcome were a ‘lack of protocols for the management of fever’ and ‘not enough blood glucose monitoring machines’. Conclusions A structured decision-support procedure has been illustrated and successfully applied to identify and prioritise barriers to target within an implementation intervention. This approach may prove to be a useful in other studies and as an adjunct to undertaking barrier assessments within individual sites when planning implementation interventions. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0298-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background The implementation of evidence-based protocols for stroke management in the emergency department (ED) for the appropriate triage, administration of tissue plasminogen activator to eligible patients, management of fever, hyperglycaemia and swallowing, and prompt transfer to a stroke unit were evaluated in an Australian cluster-randomised trial (T3 trial) conducted at 26 emergency departments. There was no reduction in 90-day death or dependency nor improved processes of ED care. We conducted an a priori planned process influential factors that impacted upon protocol uptake. Methods Qualitative face-to-face interviews were conducted with purposively selected ED and stroke clinicians from two high- and two low-performing intervention sites about their views on factors that influenced protocol uptake. All Trial State Co-ordinators (n = 3) who supported the implementation at the 13 intervention sites were also interviewed. Data were analysed thematically using normalisation process theory as a sensitising framework to understand key findings, and compared and contrasted between interviewee groups. Results Twenty-five ED and stroke clinicians, and three Trial State Co-ordinators were interviewed. Three major themes represented key influences on evidence uptake: (i) Readiness to change: reflected strategies to mobilise and engage clinical teams to foster cognitive participation and collective action; (ii) Fidelity to the protocols: reflected that beliefs about the evidence underpinning the protocols impeded the development of a shared understanding about the applicability of the protocols in the ED context (coherence); and (iii) Boundaries of care: reflected that appraisal (reflexive monitoring) by ED and stroke teams about their respective boundaries of clinical practice impeded uptake of the protocols. Conclusions Despite initial high ‘buy-in’ from clinicians, a theoretically informed and comprehensive implementation strategy was unable to overcome system and clinician level barriers. Initiatives to drive change and integrate protocols rested largely with senior nurses who had to overcome contextual factors that fell outside their control, including low medical engagement, beliefs about the supporting evidence and perceptions of professional boundaries. To maximise uptake of evidence and adherence to intervention fidelity in complex clinical settings such as ED cost-effective strategies are needed to overcome these barriers. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000939695).

Background In the Quality in Acute Stroke Care (QASC) trial undertaken in stroke units (SUs) located in New South Wales (NSW), Australia (2005–2010), facilitated implementation of a nurse-led care bundle to manage fever, hyperglycaemia and swallowing (FeSS protocols) reduced death and disability for patients with stroke. We aimed to determine subsequent adherence to the bundled FeSS processes (reflective of the protocols) between 2013 and 2017 in Australian hospitals, and examine whether changes in adherence to these processes varied based on previous participation in the QASC trial or subsequent statewide scale-up (QASCIP—Quality in Acute Stroke Care Implementation Project) and presence of an SU. Methods Cross-sectional, observational study using self-reported organisational survey and retrospective clinical audit data from the National Acute Services Stroke Audit (2013, 2015, 2017). Mixed-effects logistic regression was performed with dependent variables: (1) composite outcome measure reflecting compliance with the FeSS protocols and (2) individual FeSS processes, including the year of audit as an independent variable, adjusted for correlation of outcomes within hospital. Separate models including interaction terms between the year of audit and previous participation in QASC/QASCIP and year of audit and SU were also generated. Results Hospital participation included the following: 2013—124 hospitals, 3741 cases; 2015—112 hospitals, 4087 cases; and 2017—117 hospitals, 4192 cases. An 80% increase in the odds of receiving the composite outcome in 2017 compared to 2013 was found (2013, 30%; 2017, 41%; OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.6, 2.0; p

Background: Strict criteria for recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) eligibility are stipulated on licences for use in ischaemic stroke; however, practitioners may also add non-standard rtPA criteria. We examined eligibility criteria variation in 3 English-speaking countries including use of non-standard criteria, in relation to rtPA treatment rates. Methods: Surveys were mailed to 566 eligible hospitals in Australia (AUS), the UK, and the USA. Criteria were pre-classified as standard (approved indication and contraindications) or non-standard (approved warning or researcher “decoy”). Percentage for criterion selection was calculated/compared; linear regression was used to assess the association between use of non-standard criteria and rtPA treatment rates, and to identify factors associated with addition of non-standard criteria. Results: Response rates were 74% AUS, 65% UK, and 68% USA; mean rtPA treatment rates were 8.7% AUS, 12.7% UK, and 8.7% USA. Median percentage of non-standard inclusions was 33% (all 3 countries) and included National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores > 4, computed tomography (CT) angiography documented occlusion, and favourable CT perfusion. Median percentage of non-standard exclusions was 25% AUS, 28% UK, and 60% USA, and included depressed consciousness, NIHSS > 25, and use of antihypertensive infusions. No AUS or UK sites selected 100% of standard exclusions. Conclusions: Non-standard criteria for rtPA eligibility were evident in all three countries and could, in part, explain comparably low use of rtPA. Differences in the use of standard criteria may signify practitioner intolerance for those derived from original efficacy studies that are no longer relevant.

Background and Purpose— We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention to improve triage, treatment, and transfer for patients with acute stroke admitted to the emergency department (ED). Methods— A pragmatic, blinded, multicenter, parallel group, cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted between July 2013 and September 2016 in 26 Australian EDs with stroke units and tPA (tissue-type plasminogen activator) protocols. Hospitals, stratified by state and tPA volume, were randomized 1:1 to intervention or usual care by an independent statistician. Eligible ED patients had acute stroke 3 intervention targeted (1) Triage to Australasian Triage Scale category 1 or 2; (2) Treatment: tPA eligibility screening and appropriate administration; clinical protocols for managing fever, hyperglycemia, and swallowing; (3) prompt ( Results— Twenty-six EDs (13 intervention and 13 control) recruited 2242 patients (645 preintervention and 1597 postintervention). There were no statistically significant differences at follow-up for 90-day modified Rankin Scale (intervention: n=400 [53.5%]; control n=266 [48.7%]; P =0.24) or secondary outcomes. Conclusions— This evidence-based, theory-informed implementation trial, previously effective in stroke units, did not change patient outcomes or clinician behavior in the complex ED environment. Implementation trials are warranted to evaluate alternative approaches for improving ED stroke care. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.anzctr.org.au . Unique identifier: ACTRN12614000939695.

The organisational context of healthcare settings has an essential role in how research evidence is used in clinical practice. The Alberta Context Tool (ACT) measures 10 concepts of organisational context with higher scores indicating a more positive work environment and potentially better use of research evidence in patient care. We assessed the psychometric properties of the ACT in Emergency Departments (EDs). This validation study was conducted as part of a multi-centre trial of triage, treatment and transfer (T3 Trial) of patients with stroke admitted to EDs. Stratified sampling with proportional allocation was used to recruit ED nurses from 26 participating hospitals at baseline. Nurses completed a survey containing the ACT. Structural validity was investigated by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients. Item-rest correlations and the average inter-item correlations were also assessed. 558 ED nurses completed the survey, comprised of 433 surveys without missing data. Our exploratory factor analysis produced a 14-factor structure, explaining 62% of variance of organisational context. For eight of ten concepts, item loadings matched the factor structure of the original ACT. Confirmatory factor analysis of the 10 ACT concepts showed moderate model fit (p = 0.001, root mean square error of approximation: 0.049, standardised root mean squared residual: 0.048). Cronbach’s alphas showed very good internal consistency for nine of ten ACT concepts (α>0.7; 0.45–0.90). Item-rest correlations indicated that most ACT items (50 of 56 items) within any concept related well to the total score of the concept. Average inter-item correlations indicated potential redundant items for three concepts (feedback processes, leadership, staffing) that were above the threshold of 0.5. While identifying a few shortcomings for some ACT concepts in an ED context, the majority of findings confirm reliability and validity of the original ACT in an Australian population of ED nurses.

The uptake of evidence into practice may be impeded or facilitated by individual and organizational factors within the local context. This study investigated Nurse Managers of New South Wales, Australia, stroke units (n = 19) in their views on: leadership ability (measured by the Leadership Practices Inventory), organizational learning (measured by the Organizational Learning Survey), attitudes and beliefs towards evidence-based practice (EBP) and readiness for change. Overall Nurse Managers reported high-level leadership skills and a culture of learning. Nurse Managers' attitude towards EBP was positive, although nursing colleague's attitudes were perceived as less positive. Nurse Managers agreed that implementing evidence in practice places additional demands on staff; and almost half (n = 9, 47%) reported that resources were not available for evidence implementation. The findings indicate that key persons responsible for evidence implementation are not allocated sufficient time to coordinate and implement guidelines into practice. The findings suggest that barriers to evidence uptake, including insufficient resources and time constraints, identified by Nurse Managers in this study are not likely to be unique to stroke units. Furthermore, Nurse Managers may be unable to address these organizational barriers (i.e. lack of resources) and thus provide all the components necessary to implement EBP.

Background Theoretical frameworks and models based on behaviour change theories are increasingly used in the development of implementation interventions. Development of an implementation intervention is often based on the available evidence base and practical issues, i.e. feasibility and acceptability. The aim of this study was to describe the development of an implementation intervention for the T3 Trial (Triage, Treatment and Transfer of patients with stroke in emergency departments (EDs)) using theory to recommend behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and drawing on the research evidence base and practical issues of feasibility and acceptability. Methods A stepped method for developing complex interventions based on theory, evidence and practical issues was adapted using the following steps: (1) Who needs to do what, differently? (2) Using a theoretical framework, which barriers and enablers need to be addressed? (3) Which intervention components (behaviour change techniques and mode(s) of delivery) could overcome the modifiable barriers and enhance the enablers? A researcher panel was convened to review the list of BCTs recommended for use and to identify the most feasible and acceptable techniques to adopt. Results Seventy-six barriers were reported by hospital staff who attended the workshops (step 1: thirteen TDF domains likely to influence the implementation of the T3 Trial clinical intervention were identified by the researchers; step 2: the researcher panellists then selected one third of the BCTs recommended for use as appropriate for the clinical context of the ED and, using the enabler workshop data, devised enabling strategies for each of the selected BCTs; and step 3: the final implementation intervention consisted of 27 BCTs). Conclusions The TDF was successfully applied in all steps of developing an implementation intervention for the T3 Trial clinical intervention. The use of researcher panel opinion was an essential part of the BCT selection process to incorporate both research evidence and expert judgment. It is recommended that this stepped approach (theory, evidence and practical issues of feasibility and acceptability) is used to develop highly reportable implementation interventions. The classifying of BCTs using recognised implementation intervention components will facilitate generalisability and sharing across different conditions and clinical settings. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0616-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background and Purpose— Implementation of nurse-initiated protocols to manage fever, hyperglycemia, and swallowing dysfunction decreased death and disability 90 days poststroke in the QASC trial (Quality in Acute Stroke Care) conducted in 19 Australian acute stroke units (2005–2010). We now examine long-term all-cause mortality. Methods— Mortality was ascertained using Australia’s National Death Index. Cox proportional hazards regression compared time to death adjusting for correlation within stroke units using the cluster sandwich (Huber–White estimator) method. Primary analyses included treatment group only unadjusted for covariates. Secondary analysis adjusted for age, sex, marital status, education, and stroke severity using multiple imputation for missing covariates. Results— One thousand and seventy-six participants (intervention n=600; control n=476) were followed for a median of 4.1 years (minimum 0.3 to maximum 70 months), of whom 264 (24.5%) had died. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were generally well balanced by group. The QASC intervention group had improved long-term survival (>20%), but this was only statistically significant in adjusted analyses (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58–1.07; P =0.13; adjusted HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59–0.99; P =0.045). Older age (75–84 years; HR, 4.9; 95% CI, 2.8–8.7; P P P =0.042) was associated with increased likelihood of survival. Cardiovascular disease (including stroke) was listed either as the primary or secondary cause of death in 80% (211/264) of all deaths. Conclusions— Our results demonstrate the potential long-term and sustained benefit of nurse-initiated multidisciplinary protocols for management of fever, hyperglycemia, and swallowing dysfunction. These protocols should be a routine part of acute stroke care. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.anzctr.org.au . Unique identifier: ACTRN12608000563369.

Internationally recognised evidence-based guidelines recommend appropriate triage of patients with stroke in emergency departments (EDs), administration of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), and proactive management of fever, hyperglycaemia and swallowing before prompt transfer to a stroke unit to maximise outcomes. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness in EDs of a theory-informed, nurse-initiated, intervention to improve multidisciplinary triage, treatment and transfer (T3) of patients with acute stroke to improve 90-day death and dependency. Organisational and contextual factors associated with intervention uptake also will be evaluated. This prospective, multicentre, parallel group, cluster randomised trial with blinded outcome assessment will be conducted in EDs of hospitals with stroke units in three Australian states and one territory. EDs will be randomised 1:1 within strata defined by state and tPA volume to receive either the T3 intervention or no additional support (control EDs). Our T3 intervention comprises an evidence-based care bundle targeting: (1) triage: routine assignment of patients with suspected stroke to Australian Triage Scale category 1 or 2; (2) treatment: screening for tPA eligibility and administration of tPA where applicable; instigation of protocols for management of fever, hyperglycaemia and swallowing; and (3) transfer: prompt admission to the stroke unit. We will use implementation science behaviour change methods informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework [1, 2] consisting of (i) workshops to determine barriers and local solutions; (ii) mixed interactive and didactic education; (iii) local clinical opinion leaders; and (iv) reminders in the form of email, telephone and site visits. Our primary outcome measure is 90 days post-admission death or dependency (modified Rankin Scale >2). Secondary outcomes are health status (SF-36), functional dependency (Barthel Index), quality of life (EQ-5D); and quality of care outcomes, namely, monitoring and management practices for thrombolysis, fever, hyperglycaemia, swallowing and prompt transfer. Outcomes will be assessed at the patient level. A separate process evaluation will examine contextual factors to successful intervention uptake. At the time of publication, EDs have been randomised and the intervention is being implemented. This theoretically informed intervention is aimed at addressing important gaps in care to maximise 90-day health outcomes for patients with stroke. Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614000939695 . Registered 2 September 2014.

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. Trial Registration Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ANZCTR) No: ACTRN12608000563369