Search

Introduction: Telemedicine can alleviate the problems faced in rural settings in providing access to specialist stroke care. The evidence of the cost-effectiveness of this model of care outside high-income countries is limited. This study aimed to conduct: (a) a systematic review of economic evaluations of telestroke and (b) a cost–utility analysis of telestroke, using China as a case study. Methods: We systematically searched Embase, Medline Complete and Cochrane databases. Inclusion criteria: full economic evaluations of telemedicine/telestroke networks examining the use of thrombolysis in patients with acute ischaemic stroke, published in English. A cost–utility analysis was undertaken using a Markov model incorporating a decision tree to simulate the delivery of telestroke for acute ischaemic stroke in rural China, compared to no telestroke from a societal and healthcare perspective. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of results. Results: Of 559 publications found, eight met the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review (two cost-effectiveness analyses and six cost–utility analyses, all performed in high-income countries). Telestroke was a cost-saving/cost-effective intervention in five out of the eight studies. In our modelled analysis for rural China, telestroke was the dominant strategy, with estimated cost savings of Chinese yuan 4,328 (US$627) and additional 0.0925 quality-adjusted life years per patient. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the base case results. Discussion: Consistent with published economic evaluations of telestroke in other jurisdictions, telestroke represents a cost-effective solution to enhance stroke care in rural China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Poststroke depression (PSD) is common but insufficiently addressed by health professionals, and management is not always evidence-based. Objectives: This evidence implementation project aimed to improve adherence to evidence-based practice for screening, prevention, and management of patients with PSD in the neurology ward of the Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, China. Methods: This project was based on the JBI methodological approach and was conducted in three phases, from January to June 2021: a baseline audit, implementation of strategies, and a follow-up audit. We utilized the JBI Practical Application of Clinical Evidence System software and the Getting Research into Practice tools. Fourteen nurses, 162 stroke patients, and their caregivers participated in this study. Results: The results of the baseline audit showed that compliance with evidence-based practice was poor, with 3/6 criteria showing 0% adherence and the other three audit criteria showing 5.7, 10.3, and 49.4% adherence, respectively. Through feedback to nurses regarding the baseline audit results, the project team identified five barriers and adopted a battery of strategies to overcome these barriers. The follow-up audit revealed significantly enhanced outcomes across all the best practice criteria, and the compliance of each criterion reached at least 80%. Conclusion: The implementation program designed to screen, prevent, and manage PSD in a tertiary hospital in China improved nurses' knowledge and compliance with evidence-based management of PSD. Further testing of this program in more hospitals is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a growing body of research evidence to guide acute stroke care. Receiving care in a stroke unit improves access to recommended evidence-based therapies and patient outcomes. However, even in stroke units, evidence-based recommendations are inconsistently delivered by healthcare workers to patients with stroke. Implementation interventions are strategies designed to improve the delivery of evidence-based care., Objectives: To assess the effects of implementation interventions (compared to no intervention or another implementation intervention) on adherence to evidence-based recommendations by health professionals working in acute stroke units. Secondary objectives were to assess factors that may modify the effect of these interventions, and to determine if single or multifaceted strategies are more effective in increasing adherence with evidence-based recommendations., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Joanna Briggs Institute and ProQuest databases to 13 April 2022. We searched the grey literature and trial registries and reviewed reference lists of all included studies, relevant systematic reviews and primary studies; contacted corresponding authors of relevant studies and conducted forward citation searching of the included studies. There were no restrictions on language and publication date., Selection Criteria: We included randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials. Participants were health professionals providing care to patients in acute stroke units; implementation interventions (i.e. strategies to improve delivery of evidence-based care) were compared to no intervention or another implementation intervention. We included studies only if they reported on our primary outcome which was quality of care, as measured by adherence to evidence-based recommendations, in order to address the review aim., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. We compared single implementation interventions to no intervention, multifaceted implementation interventions to no intervention, multifaceted implementation interventions compared to single implementation interventions and multifaceted implementation interventions to another multifaceted intervention. Our primary outcome was adherence to evidence-based recommendations., Main Results: We included seven cluster-randomised trials with 42,489 patient participants from 129 hospitals, conducted in Australia, the UK, China, and the Netherlands. Health professional participants (numbers not specified) included nursing, medical and allied health professionals. Interventions in all studies included implementation strategies targeting healthcare workers; three studies included delivery arrangements, no studies used financial arrangements or governance arrangements. Five trials compared a multifaceted implementation intervention to no intervention, two trials compared one multifaceted implementation intervention to another multifaceted implementation intervention. No included studies compared a single implementation intervention to no intervention or to a multifaceted implementation intervention. Quality of care outcomes (proportions of patients receiving evidence-based care) were included in all included studies. All studies had low risks of selection bias and reporting bias, but high risk of performance bias. Three studies had high risks of bias from non-blinding of outcome assessors or due to analyses used. We are uncertain whether a multifaceted implementation intervention leads to any change in adherence to evidence-based recommendations compared with no intervention (risk ratio (RR) 1.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 3.61; 4 trials; 76 clusters; 2144 participants, I 2 =92%, very low-certainty evidence). Looking at two specific processes of care, multifaceted implementation interventions compared to no intervention probably lead to little or no difference in the proportion of patients with ischaemic stroke who received thrombolysis (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.37, 2 trials; 32 clusters; 1228 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), but probably do increase the proportion of patients who receive a swallow screen within 24 hours of admission (RR 6.76, 95% CI 4.44 to 10.76; 1 trial; 19 clusters; 1,804 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Multifaceted implementation interventions probably make little or no difference in reducing the risk of death, disability or dependency compared to no intervention (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02; 3 trials; 51 clusters ; 1228 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably make little or no difference to hospital length of stay compared with no intervention (difference in absolute change 1.5 days; 95% CI -0.5 to 3.5; 1 trial; 19 clusters; 1804 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We do not know if a multifaceted implementation intervention compared to no intervention result in changes to resource use or health professionals' knowledge because no included studies collected these outcomes., Authors' Conclusions: We are uncertain whether a multifaceted implementation intervention compared to no intervention improves adherence to evidence-based recommendations in acute stroke settings, because the certainty of evidence is very low., (Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)