Search

Background/Aims: Six-month post-stroke reviews are advocated for all stroke survivors. There is no recommended service model, with many variations in practice. The aim of this service evaluation was to describe and evaluate the 6-month post-stroke review service provision across the South West England Integrated Stroke Delivery Networks. Methods: A mixed-methods service evaluation for 10 services was undertaken, consisting of: a stakeholder meeting to define the scope and review criteria; a mapping exercise to define core service features and activity data; a 12-month retrospective Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme clinical data audit plus a 1-month prospective audit detailing identified unmet needs, actions to address needs and patient satisfaction; service provider and user guided discussions; and options appraisal synthesising data from all sources to inform service development. Results: Considerable variations in service configuration, processes and outcomes existed across services. Guided discussions with 40 service users and 20 service providers revealed predominantly positive experiences. There was perceived value in the review, a key ingredient being its person-centred nature. However, some felt that the review was generic and more of a tick-box exercise. Many staff appeared unaware of differing 6-month post-stroke review models across the region and rarely used Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme data to reflect on service outcomes or inform service development. Sharing of good practice across services appeared limited. Conclusions: Data did not support a specific preferred service model. Findings suggested 6-month post-stroke reviews should not be a 'one size fits all' model, with flexibility in format and timing to optimise value. A knowledge sharing and evidence-based culture should be encouraged to nurture service development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study involved a systematic literature review to document the sources behind publications and citations that comprise knowledge about rates of braille usage/literacy among people with visual impairments in the United States. Methods: Predefined search criteria were used to extract publications that potentially mentioned claims about braille literacy and usage rates, dating back as far as the early 20th century. Systematic analyses narrowed the set of publications to a collection of 95 articles and manuscripts that made specific statements about the prevalence of braille readership. Results: The analysis revealed that even in peer-reviewed publications, many claims about braille literacy are made without citations to dependable sources. All identified citations used as the basis for braille literacy rates since the 1970s can be traced back to two primary sources: a National Library Service report from 1979 and the American Printing House for the Blind (APH) Federal Quota data (which should not be used as a source for braille literacy rates). Discussion: This research explains the source of the often-cited "10%" statistic. The findings also challenge the field to question the bases for statements about braille literacy rates, including asking, "What do we mean by braille literacy?" Implications for Practitioners: There is no current source of data that succinctly measures braille literacy rates in the United States, and there are no data that explain whether braille literacy rates are rising or declining. Making effective, data-based decisions requires asking the right questions and being informed readers of research in the field of visual impairment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]