Search

INTRODUCTION: Stroke survivors have complex health needs requiring long-term, integrated care. This study aimed to elicit generalists' and specialists' experience of stroke-related interprofessional communication, including perceived barriers and enablers. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study involving generalist (primary care) and specialist services (acute and community) in England. Six focus groups (n = 48) were conducted. METHOD: Healthcare professionals were purposively selected and invited to participate. Audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: 1) Generalists and specialists have overlapping roles but are working in silos; 2) Referral decision-making process as influential to generalist-specialist communication; 3) Variable quality of communication; and 4) Improved dialogue between generalist and specialist services. CONCLUSIONS: Generalists and specialists recognise the need for better communication with each other. Current care is characterised by silo-based working that ignores the contribution of other sectors. Failure to bridge this communication gap will result in people with stroke continuing to experience unmet stroke needs and fragmented care.

OBJECTIVES: Interprofessional collaboration between midwives and health visitors working in maternal and child health services is widely encouraged. This systematic review aimed to identify existing and potential areas for collaboration between midwives and health visitors; explore the methods through which collaboration is and can be achieved; assess the effectiveness of this relationship between these groups, and ascertain whether the identified examples of collaboration are in line with clinical guidelines and policy. DESIGN: A narrative synthesis of qualitative and quantitative studies. DATA SOURCES: Fourteen electronic databases, research mailing lists, recommendations from key authors and reference lists and citations of included papers. REVIEW METHODS: Papers were included if they explored one or a combination of: the areas of practice in which midwives and health visitors worked collaboratively; the methods that midwives and health visitors employed when communicating and collaborating with each other; the effectiveness of collaboration between midwives and health visitors; and whether collaborative practice between midwives and health visitors meet clinical guidelines. Papers were assessed for study quality. RESULTS: Eighteen papers (sixteen studies) met the inclusion criteria. The studies found that midwives and health visitors reported valuing interprofessional collaboration, however this was rare in practice. Findings show that collaboration could be useful across the service continuum, from antenatal care, transition of care/handover, to postnatal care. Evidence for the effectiveness of collaboration between these two groups was equivocal and based on self-reported data. In relation, multiple enablers and barriers to collaboration were identified. Communication was reportedly key to interprofessional collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: Interprofessional collaboration was valuable according to both midwives and health visitors, however, this was made challenging by several barriers such as poor communication, limited resources, and poor understanding of each other's role. Structural barriers such as physical distance also featured as a challenge to interprofessional collaboration. Although the findings are limited by variable methodological quality, these were consistent across time, geographical locations, and health settings, indicating transferability and reliability.

IntroductionPrimary care interventions are often multicomponent, with several targets (eg, patients and healthcare professionals). Improving Primary Care After Stroke (IPCAS) is a novel primary care-based model of long-term stroke care involving a review of stroke-related needs, a self-management programme, a direct point of contact in general practice, enhanced communication between care services, and a directory of national and local community services, currently being evaluated in a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT). Informed by Medical Research Council guidance for complex interventions and the Behaviour Change Consortium fidelity framework, this protocol outlines the process evaluation of IPCAS within this RCT. The process evaluation aimed to explore how the intervention was delivered in context and how participants engaged with the intervention.Methods and analysisMixed methods will be used: (1) design: intervention content will be compared with ‘usual care’; (2) training: intervention training sessions will be audio/video-recorded where feasible; (3) delivery: healthcare professional self-reports, audio recordings of intervention delivery and observations of My Life After Stroke course (10% of reviews and sessions) will be coded separately; semistructured interviews will be conducted with a purposive sample of healthcare professionals; (4) receipt and (5) enactment: where available, structured stroke review records will be analysed quantitatively; semistructured interviews will be conducted with a purposive sample of study participants. Self-reports, observations and audio/video recordings will be coded and scored using specifically developed checklists. Semistructured interviews will be analysed thematically. Data will be analysed iteratively, independent of primary endpoint analysis.Ethics and disseminationFavourable ethical opinion was gained from Yorkshire & The Humber-Bradford Leeds NHS Research Ethics Committee (19 December 2017, 17/YH/0441). Study results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences.Trial registration numberNCT03353519; Pre-results.

Stroke and transient ischaemic attack (TIA) remain leading causes of mortality and morbidity globally. Although mortality rates have been in decline, the number of people affected by stroke has risen. These patients have a range of long-term needs and often present to primary care. Furthermore, many of these patients have multimorbidities which increase the complexity of their healthcare. Long-term impacts from stroke/TIA along with care needs for other morbidities can be challenging to address because care can involve different healthcare professionals, both specialist and generalist. In the ideal model of care, such professionals would work collaboratively to provide care. Despite the commonality of multimorbidity in stroke/TIA, gaps in the literature remain, particularly limited knowledge of pairings or clusters of comorbid conditions and the extent to which these are interrelated. Moreover, integrated care practices are less well understood and remain variable in practice. This article argues that it is important to understand (through research) patterns of multimorbidity, including number, common clusters and types of comorbidities, and current interprofessional practice to inform future directions to improve long-term care.