Learning together for better health using an evidence-based Learning Health System framework: a case study in stroke.

BACKGROUND: In the context of expanding digital health tools, the health system is ready for Learning Health System (LHS) models. These models, with proper governance and stakeholder engagement, enable the integration of digital infrastructure to provide feedback to all relevant parties including clinicians and consumers on performance against best practice standards, as well as fostering innovation and aligning healthcare with patient needs. The LHS literature primarily includes opinion or consensus-based frameworks and lacks validation or evidence of benefit. Our aim was to outline a rigorously codesigned, evidence-based LHS framework and present a national case study of an LHS-aligned national stroke program that has delivered clinical benefit. MAIN TEXT: Current core components of a LHS involve capturing evidence from communities and stakeholders (quadrant 1), integrating evidence from research findings (quadrant 2), leveraging evidence from data and practice (quadrant 3), and generating evidence from implementation (quadrant 4) for iterative system-level improvement. The Australian Stroke program was selected as the case study as it provides an exemplar of how an iterative LHS works in practice at a national level encompassing and integrating evidence from all four LHS quadrants. Using this case study, we demonstrate how to apply evidence-based processes to healthcare improvement and embed real-world research for optimising healthcare improvement. We emphasize the transition from research as an endpoint, to research as an enabler and a solution for impact in healthcare improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The Australian Stroke program has nationally improved stroke care since 2007, showcasing the value of integrated LHS-aligned approaches for tangible impact on outcomes. This LHS case study is a practical example for other health conditions and settings to follow suit.

Is it possible to make 'living' guidelines? An evaluation of the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Keeping best practice guidelines up-to-date with rapidly emerging research evidence is challenging. 'Living guidelines' approaches enable continual incorporation of new research, assisting healthcare professionals to apply the latest evidence to their clinical practice. However, information about how living guidelines are developed, maintained and applied is limited. The Stroke Foundation in Australia was one of the first organisations to apply living guideline development methods for their Living Stroke Guidelines (LSGs), presenting a unique opportunity to evaluate the process and impact of this novel approach. METHODS: A mixed-methods study was conducted to understand the experience of LSGs developers and end-users. We used thematic analysis of one-on-one semi-structured interview and online survey data to determine the feasibility, acceptability, and facilitators and barriers of the LSGs. Website analytics data were also reviewed to understand usage. RESULTS: Overall, the living guidelines approach was both feasible and acceptable to developers and users. Facilitators to use included collaboration with multidisciplinary clinicians and stroke survivors or carers. Increased workload for developers, workload unpredictability, and limited information sharing, and interoperability of technological platforms were identified as barriers. Users indicated increased trust in the LSGs (69%), likelihood of following the LSGs (66%), and frequency of access (58%), compared with previous static versions. Web analytics data showed individual access by 16,517 users in 2016 rising to 53,154 users in 2020, a threefold increase. There was also a fourfold increase in unique LSG pageviews from 2016 to 2020. CONCLUSIONS: This study, the first evaluation of living guidelines, demonstrates that this approach to stroke guideline development is feasible and acceptable, that these approaches may add value to developers and users, and may increase guideline use. Future evaluations should be embedded along with guideline implementation to capture data prospectively.

A practical guide to living evidence: Reducing the knowledge-to-practice gap.

Living evidence involves continuous evidence surveillance to incorporate new relevant evidence into systematic reviews and clinical practice guideline recommendations as soon as it becomes available. Thus, living evidence may improve the timeliness of recommendation updates and reduce the knowledge-to-practice gap. When considering a living evidence model, several processes and practical aspects need to be explored. Some of these include identifying the need for a living evidence model, funding, governance structure, time, team skills and capabilities, frequency of updates, approval and endorsement and publication and dissemination.

Access to inpatient mood management services after stroke in Australian acute and rehabilitation hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: Post-stroke mental health impairments are common, but under-assessed and under-treated. We aim to describe trends in the provision of mood management to patients with stroke, and describe factors associated with adoption of national mood management recommendations for stroke within Australian hospitals. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of cross-sectional data from the biennial Stroke Foundation Audit Program. SETTING: Participating acute (2011-2021) and rehabilitation hospitals (2012-2020) in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: In the acute audit, 22,937 stroke cases were included from 133 hospitals. In the rehabilitation audit, 15,891 stroke cases were included from 127 hospitals. MAIN MEASURES: Hospital- and patient-level mood management processes. RESULTS: Among 133 acute hospitals (22,937 stroke episodes), improvements were made between 2011 and 2021 in utilization of mood screening (17% [2011], 33% [2021]; p < 0.001) and access to psychologists during hospital stay (18% [2011], 45% [2021]; p < 0.001). There was no change in access to a psychologist among those with a mood impairment (p = 0.34). Among 127 rehabilitation hospitals (15,891 stroke episodes) improvements were observed for mood screening (35% [2012], 61% [2020]; p < 0.001), and access to a psychologist during hospital stay (38% [2012], 68% [2020]; p < 0.001) and among those with a mood-impairment (30% [2012], 50% [2020]; p < 0.001). Factors associated with receiving mood management processes included: younger age, not requiring an interpreter and longer length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to mood management recommendations has improved over 10 years within Australian hospitals. Those aged over 65, requiring an interpreter, or with shorter hospital stays are at risk of missing out on appropriate mood management.

Evidence surveillance for a living clinical guideline: Case study of the Australian stroke guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Continual evidence surveillance is an integral feature of living guidelines. The Australian Stroke Guidelines include recommendations on 100 clinical topics and have been 'living' since 2018. OBJECTIVES: To describe the approach for establishing and evaluating an evidence surveillance system for the living Australian Stroke Guidelines. METHODS: We developed a pragmatic surveillance system based on an analysis of the searches for the 2017 Stroke Guidelines and evaluated its reliability by assessing the potential impact on guideline recommendations. Search retrieval and screening workload are monitored monthly, together with the frequency of changes to the guideline recommendations. RESULTS: Evidence surveillance was guided by practical considerations of efficiency and sustainability. A single PubMed search covering all guideline topics, limited to systematic reviews and randomised trials, is run monthly. The search retrieves about 400 records a month of which a sixth are triaged to the guideline panels for further consideration. Evaluations with Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register demonstrated the robustness of adopting this more restrictive approach. Collaborating with the guideline team in designing, implementing and evaluating the surveillance is essential for optimising the approach. CONCLUSION: Monthly evidence surveillance for a large living guideline is feasible and sustainable when applying a pragmatic approach.

Improving Practice for Urinary Continence Care on Adult Acute Medical and Rehabilitation Wards: A Multi-Site, Co-Created Implementation Study.

Many adult inpatients experience urinary continence issues; however, we lack evidence on effective interventions for inpatient continence care. We conducted a before and after implementation study. We implemented our guideline-based intervention using strategies targeting identified barriers and evaluated the impact on urinary continence care provided by inpatient clinicians. Fifteen wards (acute = 3, rehabilitation = 7, acute and rehabilitation = 5) at 12 hospitals (metropolitan = 4, regional = 8) participated. We screened 2298 consecutive adult medical records for evidence of urinary continence symptoms over three 3-month periods: before implementation (T0: n = 849), after the 6-month implementation period (T1: n = 740), and after a 6-month maintenance period (T2: n = 709). The records of symptomatic inpatients were audited for continence assessment, diagnosis, and management plans. All wards contributed data at T0, and 11/15 wards contributed at T1 and T2 (dropouts due to COVID-19). Approximately 26% of stroke, 33% acute medical, and 50% of rehabilitation inpatients were symptomatic. The proportions of symptomatic patients (T0: n = 283, T1: n = 241, T2: n = 256) receiving recommended care were: assessment T0 = 38%, T1 = 63%, T2 = 68%; diagnosis T0 = 30%, T1 = 70%, T2 = 71%; management plan T0 = 7%, T1 = 24%, T2 = 24%. Overall, there were 4-fold increased odds for receiving assessments and management plans and 6-fold greater odds for diagnosis. These improvements were sustained at T2. This intervention has improved inpatient continence care.

Twenty years of monitoring acute stroke care in Australia through the national stroke audit programme (1999-2019): A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: National organisational surveys and clinical audits to monitor and guide improvements to the delivery of evidence-based acute stroke care have been undertaken in Australia since 1999. This study aimed to determine the association between repeated national audit cycles on stroke service provision and care delivery from 1999 to 2019. METHODS: Cross-sectional study using data from organisational surveys (1999, 2004, 2007-2019) and clinical data from the biennial National Stroke Acute Audit (2007-2019). Age-, sex-, and stroke severity-adjusted proportions were reported for adherence to guideline-recommended care processes. Multivariable, logistic regression models were performed to determine the association between repeated audit cycles and service provision (organisational) and care delivery (clinical). RESULTS: Overall, 197 hospitals provided organisational survey data (1999-2019), with 24,996 clinical cases from 136 hospitals (around 40 cases per audit) (2007-2019). We found significant improvements in service organisation between 1999 and 2019 for access to stroke units (1999: 42%, 2019: 81%), thrombolysis services (1999: 6%, 2019: 85%), and rapid assessment/management for patients with transient ischaemic attack (1999: 11%, 2019: 61%). Analyses of patient-level audits for 2007 to 2019 found the odds of receiving care processes per audit cycle to have significantly increased for thrombolysis (2007: 3%, 2019: 11%; OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.13, 1.17), stroke unit access (2007: 52%, 2019: 69%; OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.14, 1.17), risk factor advice (2007: 40%, 2019: 63%; OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.09, 1.12), and carer training (2007: 24%, 2019: 51%; OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.10, 1.15). CONCLUSIONS: Between 1999 and 2019, the quality of acute stroke care in Australia has improved in line with best practice evidence. Standardised monitoring of stroke care can inform targeted efforts to reduce identified gaps in best practice, and illustrate the evolution of the health system for stroke.

A systematic review and synthesis of global stroke guidelines on behalf of the World Stroke Organization.

BACKGROUND: There are multiple stroke guidelines globally. To synthesize these and summarize what existing stroke guidelines recommend about the management of people with stroke, the World Stroke Organization (WSO) Guideline committee, under the auspices of the WSO, reviewed available guidelines. AIMS: To systematically review the literature to identify stroke guidelines (excluding primary stroke prevention and subarachnoid hemorrhage) since 1 January 2011, evaluate quality (The international Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE II)), tabulate strong recommendations, and judge applicability according to stroke care available (minimal, essential, advanced). SUMMARY OF REVIEW: Searches identified 15,400 titles; 911 texts were retrieved, 200 publications scrutinized by the three subgroups (acute, secondary prevention, rehabilitation), and recommendations extracted from most recent version of relevant guidelines. For acute treatment, there were more guidelines about ischemic stroke than intracerebral hemorrhage; recommendations addressed pre-hospital, emergency, and acute hospital care. Strong recommendations were made for reperfusion therapies for acute ischemic stroke. For secondary prevention, strong recommendations included establishing etiological diagnosis; management of hypertension, weight, diabetes, lipids, and lifestyle modification; and for ischemic stroke, management of atrial fibrillation, valvular heart disease, left ventricular and atrial thrombi, patent foramen ovale, atherosclerotic extracranial large vessel disease, intracranial atherosclerotic disease, and antithrombotics in non-cardioembolic stroke. For rehabilitation, there were strong recommendations for organized stroke unit care, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, task-specific training, fitness training, and specific interventions for post-stroke impairments. Most recommendations were from high-income countries, and most did not consider comorbidity, resource implications, and implementation. Patient and public involvement was limited. CONCLUSION: The review identified a number of areas of stroke care where there was strong consensus. However, there was extensive repetition and redundancy in guideline recommendations. Future guideline groups should consider closer collaboration to improve efficiency, include more people with lived experience in the development process, consider comorbidity, and advise on implementation.

Benefit of linking hospital resource information and patient-level stroke registry data.

Variation in the delivery of evidence-based care affects outcomes for patients with stroke. A range of hospital (organizational), patient, and clinical factors can affect care delivery. Clinical registries are widely used to monitor stroke care and guide quality improvement efforts within hospitals. However, hospital features are rarely collected. We aimed to explore the influence of hospital resources for stroke, in metropolitan and regional/rural hospitals, on the provision of evidence-based patient care and outcomes. The 2017 National Audit organizational survey (Australia) was linked to patient-level data from the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (2016-2017 admissions). Regression models were used to assess the associations between hospital resources (based on the 2015 Australian National Acute Stroke Services Framework) and patient care (reflective of national guideline recommendations), as well as 90-180-day readmissions and health-related quality of life. Models were adjusted for patient factors, including the severity of stroke. Fifty-two out of 127 hospitals with organizational survey data were merged with 22 832 Australian Stroke Clinical Registry patients with an admission for a first-ever stroke or transient ischaemic attack (median age 75 years, 55% male, and 66% ischaemic). In metropolitan hospitals (n = 42, 20 977 patients, 1701 thrombolyzed, and 2395 readmitted between 90 and 180 days post stroke), a faster median door-to-needle time for thrombolysis was associated with ≥500 annual stroke admissions [-15.9 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) -27.2, -4.7], annual thrombolysis >20 patients (-20.2 minutes, 95% CI -32.0, -8.3), and having specialist stroke staff (dedicated medical lead and stroke coordinator; -12.7 minutes, 95% CI -25.0, -0.4). A reduced likelihood of all-cause readmissions between 90 and 180 days was evident in metropolitan hospitals using care pathways for stroke management (odds ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.67-0.99). In regional/rural hospitals (n = 10, 1855 patients), being discharged with a care plan was also associated with the use of stroke clinical pathways (odds ratio 3.58, 95% CI 1.45-8.82). No specific hospital resources influenced 90-180-day health-related quality of life. Relevant to all international registries, integrating information about hospital resources with clinical registry data provides greater insights into factors that influence evidence-based care.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 5: decisions on methods for evidence synthesis and recommendation development for living guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: Producing living guidelines requires making important decisions about methods for evidence identification, appraisal, and integration to allow the living mode to function. Clarifying what these decisions are and the trade-offs between options is necessary. This article provides living guideline developers with a framework to enable them to choose the most suitable model for their living guideline topic, question, or context. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We developed this guidance through an iterative process informed by interviews, feedback, and a consensus process with an international group of living guideline developers. RESULTS: Several key decisions need to be made both before commencing and throughout the continual process of living guideline development and maintenance. These include deciding what approach is taken to the systematic review process; decisions about methods to be applied for the evidence appraisal process, including the use of unpublished data; and selection of "triggers" to incorporate new studies into living guideline recommendations. In each case, there are multiple options and trade-offs. CONCLUSION: We identify trade-offs and important decisions to be considered throughout the living guideline development process. The most appropriate, and most sustainable, mode of development and updating will be dependent on the choices made in each of these areas.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 3: selecting and prioritizing questions for living guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: This article is part of a series on methods for living guidelines, consolidating practical experiences from developing living guidelines. It focuses on methods for identification, selection, and prioritization of clinical questions for a living approach to guideline development. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Members of the Australian Living Evidence Consortium, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence and the US Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Network, convened a working group. All members have expertize and practical experience in the development of living guidelines. We collated methods, documents on prioritization from each organization's living guidelines, conducted interviews and held working group discussions. We consolidated these to form best practice principles which were then edited and agreed on by the working group members. RESULTS: We developed best practice principles for (1) identification, (2) selection, and (3) prioritization, of questions for a living approach to guideline development. Several different strategies for undertaking prioritizing questions are explored. CONCLUSION: The article provides guidance for prioritizing questions in living guidelines. Subsequent articles in this series explore consumer involvement, search decisions, and methods decisions that are appropriate for questions with different priority levels.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 2: consumer engagement in living guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and reflect on the consumer engagement approaches used in five living guidelines from the perspectives of consumers (i.e., patients, carers, the public, and their representatives) and guideline developers. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In a descriptive report, we used a template to capture engagement approaches and the experiences of consumers and guideline developers in living guidelines in Australia and the United Kingdom. Responses were summarized using descriptive synthesis. RESULTS: One guideline used a Consumer Panel, three included two to three consumers in the guideline development group, and one did both. Much of our experience was common to all guidelines (e.g., consumers felt welcomed but that their role initially lacked clarity). We identified six challenges and opportunities specific to living guidelines: managing the flow of work; managing engagement in online environments; managing membership of the panel; facilitating more flexibility, variety and depth in engagement; recruiting for specific skills-although these can be built over time; developing living processes to improve; and adapting consumer engagement together. CONCLUSION: Consumer engagement in living guidelines should follow established principles of consumer engagement in guidelines. Conceiving the engagement as living, underpinned by a living process evaluation, allows the approach to be developed with consumers over time.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 1: Introduction.

OBJECTIVES: To introduce methods for living guidelines based on practical experiences by the Australian Living Evidence Consortium (ALEC), the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), with methodological support from the US Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Network. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Members of ALEC, NICE, and the US GRADE Network, convened a working group to share experiences of the methods used to develop living guidelines and outline the key differences between traditional and living guidelines methods. RESULTS: The guidance includes the following steps: 1) deciding if the guideline is a priority for a living approach, 2) preparing for living guideline development, 3) literature surveillance and frequency of searching, 4) assessment and synthesis of the evidence, 5) publication and dissemination, and 6) transitioning recommendations out of living mode. CONCLUSION: This paper introduces methods for living guidelines and provides examples of the similarities and differences in approach across multiple organizations conducting living guidelines. It also introduces a series of papers exploring methods for living guidelines based on our practical experiences, including consumer involvement, selecting and prioritizing questions, search decisions, and methods decisions.

Development, implementation, and evaluation of the Australian Stroke Data Tool (AuSDaT): Comprehensive data capturing for multiple uses.

BACKGROUND: Historically, national programs for collecting stroke data in Australia required the use of multiple online tools. Clinicians were required to enter overlapping variables for the same patient in the different databases. From 2013 to 2016, the Australian Stroke Data Tool (AuSDaT) was built as an integrated data management solution. OBJECTIVE: In this article, we have described the development, implementation, and evaluation phases of establishing the AuSDaT. METHOD: In the development phase, a governance structure with representatives from different data collection programs was established. Harmonisation of data variables, drawn from six programs used in hospitals for monitoring stroke care, was facilitated through creating a National Stroke Data Dictionary. The implementation phase involved a staged deployment for two national programs over 12 months. The evaluation included an online survey of people who had used the AuSDaT between March 2018 and May 2018. RESULTS: By July 2016, data entered for an individual patient was, for the first time, shared between national programs. Overall, 119/422 users (90% female, 61% aged 30-49 years, 57% nurses) completed the online evaluation survey. The two most positive features reported about the AuSDaT were (i) accessibility of the system (including simultaneous user access), and (ii) the ability to download reports to benchmark local data against peer hospitals or national performance. More than three quarters of respondents (n = 92, 77%) reported overall satisfaction with the data collection tool. CONCLUSION: The AuSDaT reduces duplication and enables users from different national programs for stroke to enter standardised data into a single system. IMPLICATIONS: This example may assist others who seek to establish a harmonised data management solution for different disease areas where multiple programs of data collection exist. The importance of undertaking continuous evaluation of end-users to identify preferences and aspects of the tool that are not meeting current requirements were illustrated. We also highlighted the opportunities to increase interoperability, utility, and facilitate the exchange of accurate and meaningful data.

How frequently should "living" guidelines be updated? Insights from the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: "Living guidelines" are guidelines which are continually kept up to date as new evidence emerges. Living guideline methods are evolving. The aim of this study was to determine how frequently searches for new evidence should be undertaken for the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines. METHODS: Members of the Living Stroke Guidelines Development Group were invited to complete an online survey. Participants nominated one or more recommendation topics from the Living Stroke Guidelines with which they had been involved and answered questions about that topic, assessing whether it met criteria for living evidence synthesis, and how frequently searches for new evidence should be undertaken and why. For each topic we also determined how many studies had been assessed and included, and whether recommendations had been changed. RESULTS: Fifty-seven assessments were received from 33 respondents, covering half of the 88 guideline topic areas. Nearly all assessments (49, 86%) were that the continual updating process should be maintained. Only three assessments (5%) deemed that searches should be conducted monthly; 3-monthly (14, 25%), 6-monthly (13, 23%) and yearly (17, 30%) searches were far more frequently recommended. Rarely (9, 16%) were topics deemed to meet all three criteria for living review. The vast majority of assessments (45, 79%) deemed the topic a priority for decision-making. Nearly half indicated that there was uncertainty in the available evidence or that new evidence was likely to be available soon. Since 2017, all but four of the assessed topic areas have had additional studies included in the evidence summary. For eight topics, there have been changes in recommendations, and revisions are underway for an additional six topics. Clinical importance was the most common reason given for why continual evidence surveillance should be undertaken. Workload for reviewers was a concern, particularly for topics where there is a steady flow of publication of small trials. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that participants felt that the vast majority of topics assessed in the Living Stroke Guidelines should be continually updated. However, only a fifth of topic areas were assessed as conclusively meeting all three criteria for living review, and the definition of "continual" differed widely. This work has informed decisions about search frequency for the Living Stroke Guidelines and form the basis of further research on methods for frequent updating of guidelines.

Broadening the diversity of consumers engaged in guidelines: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Guideline developers are encouraged to engage patients, carers and their representatives ('consumers') from diverse backgrounds in guideline development to produce more widely applicable guidelines. However, consumers from diverse backgrounds are infrequently included in guidelines and there is scant research to support guideline developers to do this. OBJECTIVES: To identify principles and approaches to broaden the diversity of consumers engaged in guideline development. DESIGN: Scoping review and semi-structured interviews. METHODS: We conducted comprehensive searches to March 2020 for studies, reports and guidance documents. Inclusion criteria included the terms 'consumer' (patients, carers and their representatives), 'diversity' (defined using the PROGRESS-PLUS mnemonic) and 'consumer engagement' (the active involvement of consumers at any stage of guideline development). We also conducted four interviews with consumers and guideline developers. We used descriptive synthesis to identify themes, and summarised information about implemented approaches used to broaden diversity of consumers in guidelines. RESULTS: From 10 included documents, we identified eight themes. Themes covered general engagement concepts (Respectful partnerships; Recruitment; Expectations, process and review); specific concepts about guideline development group (GDG) engagement (Characteristics of guideline personnel; Consumers' role, characteristics and prominence; Preparing and supporting consumers); and other (non-GDG) approaches (Online methods; Consultations and research-based approaches). The most commonly included PROGRESS-PLUS categories were Disability, Race/culture/ethnicity/language, Place of residence and Other vulnerable (eg, 'disadvantaged groups'). Each theme included the views of both consumers and guideline developers. We found descriptions of 12 implemented engagement approaches to broaden diversity of consumers in guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Relationship-building, mitigating power imbalances and meeting consumers where they are at underpin our findings. Engaging with diverse groups may require greater attention to building formal, respectful partnerships and employing inclusive engagement methods.

Effect of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic on the Quality of Stroke Care in Stroke Units and Alternative Wards: A National Comparative Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Changes to hospital systems were implemented from March 2020 in Australia in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, including decreased resources allocated to stroke units. We investigate changes in the quality of acute care for patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack during the pandemic according to patients' treatment setting (stroke unit or alternate ward). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted with stroke or transient ischemic attack between January 2019 and June 2020 in the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (AuSCR). The AuSCR monitors patients' treatment setting, provision of allied health and nursing interventions, prescription of secondary prevention medications, and discharge destination. Weekly trends in the quality of care before and during the pandemic period were assessed using interrupted time series analyses. RESULTS: In total, 18,662 patients in 2019 and 8,850 patients in 2020 were included. Overall, 75% were treated in stroke units. Before the pandemic, treatment in a stroke unit was superior to alternate wards for the provision of all evidence-based therapies assessed. During the pandemic period, the proportion of patients receiving a swallow screen or assessment, being discharged to rehabilitation, and being prescribed secondary prevention medications decreased by 0.58% to 1.08% per week in patients treated in other ward settings relative to patients treated in stroke units. This change represented a 9% to 17% increase in the care gap between these treatment settings during the period of the pandemic that was evaluated (16 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: During the first 6 months of the pandemic, widening care disparities between stroke units and alternate wards have occurred.

Feasibility of national living guideline methods: The Australian Stroke Guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: Maintaining clinical guideline currency has been one challenge to traditional guideline development. This paper describes the methods used to maintain a large national guideline for stroke management. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines are developed to meet Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) standards. Monthly surveillance is conducted for new systematic reviews and randomised controlled studies. Included studies undergo data extraction followed by preparation of updated evidence-to-decision frameworks which are used to inform updates, or development of new recommendations. Small writing groups made up of clinical experts and those with lived experience review and agree on changes, which are finally reviewed by a multidisciplinary Guidelines Steering Group. Draft changes are developed and published using the online MAGICapp platform, with dissemination and promotion via traditional methods as well as social media. RESULTS: Each month approximately 350 abstracts are considered, covering 96 clinical topics and taking on average 16 h to review. There have been four major guideline updates covering 34 new and updated recommendations. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to use 'living' methods to maintain the Australian Clinical Guidelines for Stroke Management. Further work is now needed to understand the impact of living guidelines.

Understanding the Role of External Facilitation to Drive Quality Improvement for Stroke Care in Hospitals.

The use of external facilitation within the context of multicomponent quality improvement interventions (mQI) is growing. We aimed to evaluate the influence of external facilitation for improving the quality of acute stroke care. Clinicians from hospitals participating in mQI (Queensland, Australia) as part of the Stroke123 study were supported by external facilitators in a single, on-site workshop to review hospital performance against eight clinical processes of care (PoCs) collected in the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (AuSCR) and develop an action plan. Remote support (i.e., telephone/email) after the workshop was provided. As part of a process evaluation for Stroke123, we recorded the number and mode of contacts between clinicians and facilitators; type of support provided; and frequency of self-directed, hospital-level stroke registry data reviews. Analysis: We measured the association between amount/type of external facilitation, (i) development of action plans, and (ii) adherence to PoCs before and after the intervention using AuSCR data from 2010 to 2015. In total, 14/19 hospitals developed an action plan. There was no significant difference in amount or type of external facilitator support provided between hospitals that did, and did not, develop an action plan. There was no relationship between the amount of external facilitation and change in adherence to PoCs. Most (95%) hospitals accessed stroke registry performance data. In the Stroke123 study, the amount or type of external facilitation did not influence action plan development, and the amount of support did not influence the changes achieved in adherence to PoCs. Remote support may not add value for mQI.