The effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives in improving stroke care and the facilitators and barriers to their implementation: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: To successfully reduce the negative impacts of stroke, high-quality health and care practices are needed across the entire stroke care pathway. These practices are not always shared across organisations. Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) offer a unique opportunity for key stakeholders from different organisations to share, learn and 'take home' best practice examples, to support local improvement efforts. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness of QICs in improving stroke care and explored the facilitators and barriers to implementing this approach. METHODS: Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library) were searched up to June 2020, and reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews were screened. Studies conducted in an adult stroke care setting, which involved multi-professional stroke teams participating in a QIC, were included. Data was extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. For overall effectiveness, a vote-counting method was used. Data regarding facilitators and barriers was extracted and mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS: Twenty papers describing twelve QICs used in stroke care were included. QICs varied in their setting, part of the stroke care pathway, and their improvement focus. QIC participation was associated with improvements in clinical processes, but improvements in patient and other outcomes were limited. Key facilitators were inter- and intra-organisational networking, feedback mechanisms, leadership engagement, and access to best practice examples. Key barriers were structural changes during the QIC's active period, lack of organisational support or prioritisation of QIC activities, and insufficient time and resources to participate in QIC activities. Patient and carer involvement, and health inequalities, were rarely considered. CONCLUSIONS: QICs are associated with improving clinical processes in stroke care; however, their short-term nature means uncertainty remains as to whether they benefit patient outcomes. Evidence around using a QIC to achieve system-level change in stroke is equivocal. QIC implementation can be influenced by individual and organisational level factors, and future efforts to improve stroke care using a QIC should be informed by the facilitators and barriers identified. Future research is needed to explore the sustainability of improvements when QIC support is withdrawn. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Protocol registered on PROSPERO ( CRD42020193966 ).

Factors influencing implementation of aerobic exercise after stroke: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to explore the perspectives of healthcare, exercise, and fitness professionals working with people post-stroke regarding the factors affecting the implementation of aerobic exercise after stroke. DATA SOURCES: OVID SP MEDLINE, OVID SP EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from inception to December 2018 using a combination of search terms with synonyms of stroke, aerobic exercise and barriers/facilitators. REVIEW METHODS: Studies focusing on the factors affecting implementation of aerobic exercise after stroke from staff perspectives were included with no restriction on the types of study design. For inclusivity, a broad definition of aerobic exercise was used. Review authors independently extracted data from included studies using domains from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, then synthesised using a framework synthesis approach. Retrospective automated screening was conducted using Rayyan software. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included. Four reported on implementation of aerobic exercise, sixteen on general exercise interventions, all post-stroke. Factors identified as influencing implementation of aerobic exercise after stroke included professionals' self-efficacy and knowledge about stroke, patients' needs, communication and collaboration within and between organisations and resources such as equipment, staff and training. CONCLUSIONS: Key factors influencing the implementation of aerobic exercise after stroke included characteristics of the staff and intervention and system-level issues, some of which are modifiable. Further research should evaluate strategies which specifically target these modifiable factors to facilitate implementation in practice.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONAerobic exercise after stroke is an effective intervention but there are challenges to implementation from a staff and system perspective.Any changes to the identified factors should be tailored to suit the staff group and setting.Provision of training and knowledge-sharing could improve staff's confidence in the prescription and delivery of aerobic exercise after stroke though other implementation strategies should also be considered.