Dataset Information

Oral care practices in stroke: findings from the UK and Australia.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

To examine current practice, perceptions of healthcare professionals and factors affecting provision for oral care post-stroke in the UK and Australia.

Background

Poor oral care has negative health consequences for people post-stroke. Little is known about oral care practice in hospital for people post-stroke and factors affecting provision in different countries.

Design

A cross-sectional survey.

Methods

Questionnaires were mailed to stroke specialist nurses in UK and Australian hospitals providing inpatient acute or rehabilitation care post-stroke. The survey was conducted between April and November 2019. Non-respondents were contacted up to five times.

Results

Completed questionnaires were received from 150/174 (86%) hospitals in the UK, and 120/162 (74%) in Australia. A total of 52% of UK hospitals and 30% of Australian hospitals reported having a general oral care protocol, with 53% of UK and only 13% of Australian hospitals reporting using oral care assessment tools. Of those using oral care assessment tools, 50% of UK and 38% of Australian hospitals used local hospital-specific tools. Oral care assessments were undertaken on admission in 73% of UK and 57% of Australian hospitals. Staff had received oral care training in the last year in 55% of UK and 30% of Australian hospitals. Inadequate training and education on oral care for pre-registration nurses were reported by 63% of UK and 53% of Australian respondents.

Conclusion

Unacceptable variability exists in oral care practices in hospital stroke care settings. Oral care could be improved by increasing training, performing individual assessments on admission, and using standardised assessment tools and protocols to guide high quality care. The study highlights the need for incorporating staff training and the use of oral care standardised assessments and protocols in stroke care in order to improve patient outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Bangee M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8442320 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDehydration and malnutrition are common in hospitalised patients following stroke leading to poor outcomes including increased mortality. Little is known about hydration and nutrition care practices in hospital to avoid dehydration or malnutrition, and how these practices vary in different countries. This study sought to capture how the hydration and nutrition needs of patients' post-stroke are assessed and managed in the United Kingdom (UK) and Australia (AUS).AimTo examine and compare current in-hospital hydration and nutrition care practice for patients with stroke in the UK and Australia.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted between April and November 2019. Questionnaires were mailed to stroke specialist nurses in UK and Australian hospitals providing post-stroke inpatient acute care or rehabilitation. Non-respondents were contacted up to five times.ResultsWe received 150/174 (86%) completed surveys from hospitals in the UK, and 120/162 (74%) in Australia. Of the 270 responding hospitals, 96% reported undertaking assessment of hydration status during an admission, with nurses most likely to complete assessments (85%). The most common methods of admission assessment were visual assessment of the patient (UK 62%; AUS 58%), weight (UK 52%; AUS 52%), and body mass index (UK 47%; AUS 42%). Almost all (99%) sites reported that nutrition status was assessed at some point during admission, and these were mainly completed by nurses (91%). Use of standardised nutrition screening tools were more common in the UK (91%) than Australia (60%). Similar proportions of hydration management decisions were made by physicians (UK 84%; AUS 83%), and nutrition management decisions by dietitians (UK 98%; AUS 97%).ConclusionDespite broadly similar hydration and nutrition care practices after stroke in the UK and Australia, some variability was identified. Although nutrition assessment was more often informed by structured screening tools, the routine assessment of hydration was generally not. Nurses were responsible for assessment and monitoring, while dietitians and physicians undertook decision-making regarding management. Hydration care could be improved through the development of standardised assessment tools. This study highlights the need for increased implementation and use of evidence-based protocols in stroke hydration and nutrition care to improve patient outcomes.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To examine the characteristics and persistence in patients newly initiated with oral anticoagulants (OACs) for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). DESIGN:Cohort study in Clinical Practice Research Datalink. SETTING:UK primary care. PARTICIPANTS:15?242 patients with NVAF newly prescribed apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) between 1 December 2012 and 31 October 2014. 13?089 patients were OAC naïve. OUTCOME MEASURES:Patient characteristics and risk of non-persistence compared to apixaban using Cox regression models over the entire follow-up and using a time-partitioned approach to handle non-proportional hazards. RESULTS:Among the OAC naïve patients, VKAs were most common (78.1%, n=10?218), followed by rivaroxaban (12.1%, n=1589), dabigatran (5.7%, n=741) and apixaban (4.1%, n=541). High baseline stroke risk (CHA2DS2VASc ?2) ranged from 80.2% (dabigatran) to 88.4% (apixaban and rivaroxaban). History of stroke and bleeding was the highest among apixaban (23.7% and 31.6%) and lowest among VKA patients (15.9% and 27.5%). Across the entire follow-up period, adjusting for differences in characteristics, there was no evidence of a difference in non-persistence between VKA and apixaban (HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.23)). Non-persistence was higher with dabigatran (HR 1.67 (1.20 to 2.32)) and rivaroxaban (HR 1.41 (1.02 to 1.93)) than apixaban. Using the partitioned approach, non-persistence was lower with VKA (HR 0.33 (0.22 to 0.48)), and higher with dabigatran (HR 1.65 (1.08 to 2.52)) compared to apixaban in the first 2?months of follow-up. After 2?months, non-persistence was higher with VKA (HR 1.70 (1.08 to 2.66)) and dabigatran (HR 2.10 (1.30 to 3.41)). Pooling OAC naïve and experienced patients, non-persistence was also higher with rivaroxaban compared to apixaban after 2?months of follow-up (HR 1.69 (1.19 to 2.39)). CONCLUSIONS:Observed differential prescribing of OACs can result in channelling bias in comparative effectiveness research. Persistence patterns changed over follow-up time, but there are indications of improved persistence rates with apixaban over other OACs in the UK. A larger study with longer follow-up is needed to corroborate findings. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02488421).