Dataset Information

Facilitated interprofessional implementation of a physical rehabilitation guideline for stroke in inpatient settings: process evaluation of a cluster randomized trial.

ABSTRACT: The Stroke Canada Optimization of Rehabilitation by Evidence-Implementation Trial (SCORE-IT) showed that a facilitated knowledge translation (KT) approach to implementing a stroke rehabilitation guideline was more likely than passive strategies to improve functional walking capacity, but not gross manual dexterity, among patients in rehabilitation hospitals. This paper presents the results of a planned process evaluation designed to assess whether the type and number of recommended treatments implemented by stroke teams in each group would help to explain the results related to patient outcomes.As part of a cluster randomized trial, 20 rehabilitation units were stratified by language and allocated to a facilitated or passive KT intervention group. Sites in the facilitated group received the guideline with treatment protocols and funding for a part-time nurse and therapist facilitator who attended a 2-day training workshop and promoted guideline implementation for 16 months. Sites in the passive group received the guideline excluding treatment protocols. As part of a process evaluation, nurses, and occupational and physical therapists, blinded to study hypotheses, were asked to record their implementation of 18 recommended treatments targeting motor function, postural control and mobility using individualized patient checklists after treatment sessions for 2 weeks pre- and post-intervention. The percentage of patients receiving each treatment pre- and post-intervention and between groups was compared after adjusting for clustering and covariates in a random-effects logistic regression analysis.Data on treatment implementation from nine and eight sites in the facilitated and passive KT group, respectively, were available for analysis. The facilitated KT intervention was associated with improved implementation of sit-to-stand (p = 0.028) and walking (p = 0.043) training while the passive KT intervention was associated with improved implementation of standing balance training (p = 0.037), after adjusting for clustering at patient and provider levels and covariates.Despite multiple strategies and resources, the facilitated KT intervention was unsuccessful in improving integration of 18 treatments concurrently. The facilitated approach may not have adequately addressed barriers to integrating numerous treatments simultaneously and complex treatments that were unfamiliar to providers.Unique identifier- NCT00359593.

SUBMITTER: Salbach NM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5539742 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Facilitated interprofessional implementation of a physical rehabilitation guideline for stroke in inpatient settings: process evaluation of a cluster randomized trial.

Salbach Nancy M NM Wood-Dauphinee Sharon S Desrosiers Johanne J Eng Janice J JJ Graham Ian D ID Jaglal Susan B SB Korner-Bitensky Nicol N MacKay-Lyons Marilyn M Mayo Nancy E NE Richards Carol L CL Teasell Robert W RW Zwarenstein Merrick M Bayley Mark T MT

Implementation science : IS 20170801 1

<h4>Background</h4>The Stroke Canada Optimization of Rehabilitation by Evidence-Implementation Trial (SCORE-IT) showed that a facilitated knowledge translation (KT) approach to implementing a stroke rehabilitation guideline was more likely than passive strategies to improve functional walking capacity, but not gross manual dexterity, among patients in rehabilitation hospitals. This paper presents the results of a planned process evaluation designed to assess whether the type and number of recomm ...[more]

PMID: 28764752

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and Purpose- Therapeutic strategies that capitalize on the intrinsic capacity for neurological recovery early poststroke to improve locomotion are uncertain. Emerging data suggest that task-specific stepping practice provided at higher cardiovascular intensities may be critical dosage parameters that could maximize locomotor recovery. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the comparative effectiveness of providing high-intensity training on locomotor capacity early poststroke as compared with usual care. Methods- A quasi-experimental design was used to compare changes in stepping activity (StepWatch), walking, and balance outcomes during usual care (n=56) versus high-intensity stepping intervention (n=54) in inpatient stroke patients. Primary outcomes assessed weekly included self-selected and fastest gait speed, 6-minute walk test, and the Berg Balance Scale, with secondary outcomes of Swedish Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke-Norwegian version, Functional Ambulation Category, 30-s sit-to-stand, strength (average manual muscle testing), and Barthel Index. Regression analyses identified relationships between demographics, baseline function, and training activities (steps per day; duration achieved, 70%-85% maximum heart rates) and primary outcomes at discharge. Results- Following implementation of high-intensity stepping, average steps per day (5777±2784) were significantly greater than during usual care (3917±2656; P<0.001). Statistically different and clinically meaningful changes in self-selected speed (0.39±0.28 versus 0.16±0.26 m/s) and fastest gait speed (0.47±0.41 versus 0.17±0.38 m/s; both P<0.001) were observed following high-intensity interventions versus usual care and at every assessment throughout the length of stay. Changes in Berg Balance Scale and 6-minute walk test were also statistically and clinically different between groups, while secondary measures of Functional Ambulation Category and strength were also different at discharge. Primary predictors of improved walking capacity were steps per day, baseline impairments, and age. Conclusions- Provision of high-intensity stepping training applied during inpatient rehabilitation resulted in significantly greater walking and balance outcomes. This training paradigm should be further tested in other contexts to determine the generalizability to real-world and community settings.

Project description:BackgroundUsing delirium clinical guidelines may align interprofessional clinical practice and improve the care of delirious patients and their families. The aim of this project was to adapt, implement and evaluate an interprofessional modular delirium clinical practice guideline for an inpatient palliative care unit.MethodsThe setting was a 31-bed adult inpatient palliative care unit within a university-affiliated teaching hospital. Participants for the evaluation were interprofessional team members. Using integration of guideline adaptation and an education initiative, an interprofessional guideline adaptation group developed a face-to-face 'starter kit' module and four online self-learning modules. The mixed methods evaluation comprised pre-and post-implementation review of electronic patient records, an online survey, and analysis of focus groups/ interviews using an iterative, inductive thematic analysis approach.ResultsGuideline implementation took 12 months. All palliative care unit staff attended a 'starter kit' session. Overall completion rate of the four e-Learning modules was 80.4%. After guideline implementation, nursing documentation of non-pharmacological interventions occurring before medication administration was observed. There was 60% less scheduled antipsychotic use and an increase in 'as needed' midazolam use. The online survey response rate was 32% (25/77). Most participants viewed the guideline's implementation favourably. Six key themes emerged from the qualitative analysis of interviews and focus groups with ten participants: prior delirium knowledge or experiences, challenges of facilitating change, impacts on practice, collaborative effort of change, importance of standardized guidelines, and utility of guideline elements.ConclusionsGuideline implementation warrants concerted effort, time, and management support. Interprofessional team support facilitates the modular approach of guideline adaptation and implementation, leading to a change in clinical practice.

Project description:ObjectiveEffective stroke care does not end with acute treatment during hospitalization, but extends through rehabilitation and secondary stroke prevention. In transitions across care environments, stroke patients are vulnerable to errors in communication of diagnosis and treatment. This study aimed to demonstrate that formalized communication between the neurology team and the rehabilitation medicine team would promote secondary stroke prevention and minimize interruptions during rehabilitation.MethodsThe intervention was a standardized verbal handoff by phone between the discharging neurology resident and the admitting rehabilitation resident regarding each patient at transfer. This retrospective cohort study compared a pre-intervention control group (September 2012 to February 2013) and a post-intervention group transferred with the handoff (September 2013 to January 2014). The outcomes measured included errors in communication of stroke severity, stroke mechanism, medications, and recommended follow-up (appointments and tests) as well as emergent brain imaging, return to the acute care facility, and readmission.ResultsThe pre- and post-intervention groups were similar with respect to number of patients (50 vs. 52) and demographics including gender (52 vs. 54% female), age (65.8 vs. 64.0?years), severity of illness as measured by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) (10 vs. 6.5), and stroke type (84 vs. 77% ischemic). Implementation of the handoff decreased errors in communication of diagnosis (NIHSS 92 vs. 74%, p?=?0.02; stroke mechanism 54 vs. 30%, p?=?0.02). Furthermore, the handoff decreased the proportion with errors in reconciliation of critical medications (42 vs. 23%, p?=?0.04). However, the intervention did not significantly reduce interruptions of the rehabilitation program, such as emergent brain imaging (8 vs. 12%, p?=?0.55), or transfers back to the acute care hospital (26 vs. 21%, p?=?0.56).ConclusionStandardized handoffs decreased errors in communication of diagnosis and critical medications for secondary stroke prevention.

Project description:BackgroundThe Implicit Learning in Stroke study was a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial, investigating the use of different motor learning strategies in acute stroke rehabilitation. Participating Stroke Units (n = 8) were from the South East/West regions of the UK, with the experimental intervention (implicit learning) being delivered by clinical teams. It required therapists to change how they gave instructions and feedback to patients during rehabilitation. This paper reports the processes underpinning implementation of the implicit learning intervention. The evaluation aimed to i) understand how therapists made sense of, engaged with and interpreted the effects of the intervention; ii) compare this to the experience reported by patients; iii) extrapolate learning of broader relevance to the design and conduct of research involving complex interventions in stroke rehabilitation.MethodsQualitative evaluation, with data collected through focus groups with clinical staff (n = 20) and semi structured interviews with people with stroke (n = 19). Mixed inductive and theory driven analysis, underpinned by Normalisation Process Theory.ResultsHow therapists made sense of and experienced the intervention impacted how it was implemented. The intervention was delivered by individual therapists, and was influenced by their individual values, beliefs and concerns. However, how teams worked together to build a shared (team) understanding, also played a key role. Teams with a more "flexible" interpretation, reported the view that the intervention could have benefits in a wide range of scenarios. Those with a more fixed, "rule based" interpretation, found it harder to implement, and perceived the benefits to be more limited. Therapists' concerns that the intervention may impair therapeutic relationships and patient learning were not reflected in how patients experienced it.ConclusionsChanging practice, whether in a research study or in the "real world", is complex. Understanding the process of implementation is crucial to effective research delivery. Implementation frameworks facilitate understanding, and subsequently the systematic and iterative development of strategies for this to be addressed. How teams (rather than individuals) work together is central to how complex interventions are understood and implemented. It is possible that new complex interventions work best in contexts where there are 'flexible' cultures. Researchers should consider, and potentially measure this, before they can effectively implement and evaluate an intervention.Trial registrationClinical Trials - NCT03792126.

Dataset Information

Facilitated interprofessional implementation of a physical rehabilitation guideline for stroke in inpatient settings: process evaluation of a cluster randomized trial.

Publications

Facilitated interprofessional implementation of a physical rehabilitation guideline for stroke in inpatient settings: process evaluation of a cluster randomized trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets