Interventions for the uptake of evidence-based recommendations in acute stroke settings.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing body of research evidence to guide acute stroke care. Receiving care in a stroke unit improves access to recommended evidence-based therapies and patient outcomes. However, even in stroke units, evidence-based recommendations are inconsistently delivered by healthcare workers to patients with stroke. Implementation interventions are strategies designed to improve the delivery of evidence-based care. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of implementation interventions (compared to no intervention or another implementation intervention) on adherence to evidence-based recommendations by health professionals working in acute stroke units. Secondary objectives were to assess factors that may modify the effect of these interventions, and to determine if single or multifaceted strategies are more effective in increasing adherence with evidence-based recommendations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Joanna Briggs Institute and ProQuest databases to 13 April 2022. We searched the grey literature and trial registries and reviewed reference lists of all included studies, relevant systematic reviews and primary studies; contacted corresponding authors of relevant studies and conducted forward citation searching of the included studies. There were no restrictions on language and publication date. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials. Participants were health professionals providing care to patients in acute stroke units; implementation interventions (i.e. strategies to improve delivery of evidence-based care) were compared to no intervention or another implementation intervention. We included studies only if they reported on our primary outcome which was quality of care, as measured by adherence to evidence-based recommendations, in order to address the review aim. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. We compared single implementation interventions to no intervention, multifaceted implementation interventions to no intervention, multifaceted implementation interventions compared to single implementation interventions and multifaceted implementation interventions to another multifaceted intervention. Our primary outcome was adherence to evidence-based recommendations. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven cluster-randomised trials with 42,489 patient participants from 129 hospitals, conducted in Australia, the UK, China, and the Netherlands. Health professional participants (numbers not specified) included nursing, medical and allied health professionals. Interventions in all studies included implementation strategies targeting healthcare workers; three studies included delivery arrangements, no studies used financial arrangements or governance arrangements. Five trials compared a multifaceted implementation intervention to no intervention, two trials compared one multifaceted implementation intervention to another multifaceted implementation intervention. No included studies compared a single implementation intervention to no intervention or to a multifaceted implementation intervention. Quality of care outcomes (proportions of patients receiving evidence-based care) were included in all included studies. All studies had low risks of selection bias and reporting bias, but high risk of performance bias. Three studies had high risks of bias from non-blinding of outcome assessors or due to analyses used. We are uncertain whether a multifaceted implementation intervention leads to any change in adherence to evidence-based recommendations compared with no intervention (risk ratio (RR) 1.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 3.61; 4 trials; 76 clusters; 2144 participants, I2 =92%, very low-certainty evidence). Looking at two specific processes of care, multifaceted implementation interventions compared to no intervention probably lead to little or no difference in the proportion of patients with ischaemic stroke who received thrombolysis (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.37, 2 trials; 32 clusters; 1228 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), but probably do increase the proportion of patients who receive a swallow screen within 24 hours of admission (RR 6.76, 95% CI 4.44 to 10.76; 1 trial; 19 clusters; 1,804 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Multifaceted implementation interventions probably make little or no difference in reducing the risk of death, disability or dependency compared to no intervention (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02; 3 trials; 51 clusters ; 1228 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably make little or no difference to hospital length of stay compared with no intervention (difference in absolute change 1.5 days; 95% CI -0.5 to 3.5; 1 trial; 19 clusters; 1804 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We do not know if a multifaceted implementation intervention compared to no intervention result in changes to resource use or health professionals' knowledge because no included studies collected these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether a multifaceted implementation intervention compared to no intervention improves adherence to evidence-based recommendations in acute stroke settings, because the certainty of evidence is very low.

Prevalence of dementia in ischaemic or mixed stroke populations: systematic review and meta-analysis.

An understanding of the epidemiology of poststroke dementia (PSD) is necessary to inform research, practice and policy. With increasing primary studies, a contemporary review of PSD could allow for analyses of incidence and prevalence trends. Databases were searched using a prespecified search strategy. Eligible studies described an ischaemic or mixed stroke cohort with prospective clinical assessment for dementia. Pooled prevalence of dementia was calculated using random-effects models at any time after stroke (primary outcome) and at 1 year (range: 6-18 months), stratified for inclusion of prestroke dementia. Meta-regression explored the effect of year of study. Sensitivity analyses removed low-quality or outlier studies. Of 12 505 titles assessed, 44 studies were included in the quantitative analyses. At any time point after stroke, the prevalence of PSD was 16.5% (95% CI 10.4% to 25.1%) excluding prestroke dementia and 22.3% (95% CI 18.8% to 26.2%) including prestroke dementia. At 1 year, the prevalence of PSD was 18.4% (95% CI 7.4% to 38.7%) and 20.4% (95% CI 14.2% to 28.2%) with prestroke dementia included. In studies including prestroke dementia there was a negative association between dementia prevalence and year of study (slope coefficient=-0.05 (SD: 0.01), p<0.0001). Estimates were robust to sensitivity analyses. Dementia is common following stroke. At any point following stroke, more than one in five people will have dementia, although a proportion of this dementia predates the stroke. Declining prevalence of prestroke dementia may explain apparent reduction in PSD over time. Risk of dementia following stroke remains substantial and front-loaded, with high prevalence at 1 year post event.

The role of stroke nurses in thrombolysis administration in Australia and the United Kingdom: A cross-sectional survey of current practice.

BACKGROUND: The role of stroke nurses in patient selection and administration of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) for acute ischaemic stroke is evolving. OBJECTIVES: To compare differences in stroke nurses' practices related to rt-PA administration in Australia and the United Kingdom (UK) and to examine whether these differences influence rt-PA treatment rates. METHODS: A cross-sectional, self-administered questionnaire administered to a lead stroke clinician from hospitals known to provide rt-PA for acute ischaemic stroke. Chi-square tests were used to analyse between-country differences in ten pre-specified rt-PA practices. Non-parametric equality of medians test was used to assess within-country differences for likelihood of undertaking practices and association with rt-PA treatment rates. Reporting followed STROBE checklist. RESULTS: Response rate 68%; (Australia: 74% [n = 63/85]; UK: 65% [n = 93/144]). There were significant differences between countries for 7/10 practices. UK nurses were more likely to: request CT scan; screen patient for rt-PA suitability; gain informed consent; use telemedicine to assess, diagnose or treat; assist in the decision for rt-PA with Emergency Department physician or neurologist; and undergo training in rt-PA administration. Reported median hospital rt-PA treatment rates were 12% in the UK and 7.8% in Australia: (7.8%). In Australia, there was an association between higher treatment rates and nurses involvement in 5/10 practices; read and interpret CT scans; screen patient for rt-PA suitability; gain informed consent; assess suitability for rt-PA with neurologist/stroke physician; undergo training in rt-PA administration. There was no relationship between UK treatment rates and likelihood of a stroke nurse to undertake any of the ten rt-PA practices. CONCLUSION: Stroke nurses' active role in rt-PA administration can improve rt-PA treatment rates. Models of care that broaden stroke nurses' scope of practice to maximise rt-PA treatment rates for ischaemic stroke patients are needed. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study demonstrates that UK and Australian nurses play an important role in thrombolysis practices; however, they are underused. Formalising and extending the role of stroke nurses in rt-PA administration could potentially increase thrombolysis rates with clinical benefits for patients.

Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is an acute neuropsychological disorder that is common in hospitalised patients. It can be distressing to patients and carers and it is associated with serious adverse outcomes. Treatment options for established delirium are limited and so prevention of delirium is desirable. Non-pharmacological interventions are thought to be important in delirium prevention.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions designed to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients outside intensive care units (ICU). SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, with additional searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Portal/ICTRP to 16 September 2020. There were no language or date restrictions applied to the electronic searches, and no methodological filters were used to restrict the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised adults cared for outside intensive care or high dependency settings. We only included non-pharmacological interventions which were designed and implemented to prevent delirium.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently examined titles and abstracts identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data from full-text articles. Any disagreements on eligibility and inclusion were resolved by consensus. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were: incidence of delirium; inpatient and later mortality; and new diagnosis of dementia. We included secondary and adverse outcomes as pre-specified in the review protocol. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes and between-group mean differences for continuous outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. A complementary exploratory analysis was undertaker using a Bayesian component network meta-analysis fixed-effect model to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the individual components of multicomponent interventions and describe which components were most strongly associated with reducing the incidence of delirium. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 RCTs that recruited a total of 5718 adult participants. Fourteen trials compared a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention with usual care. Two trials compared liberal and restrictive blood transfusion thresholds. The remaining six trials each investigated a different non-pharmacological intervention. Incidence of delirium was reported in all studies.  Using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, we identified risks of bias in all included trials. All were at high risk of performance bias as participants and personnel were not blinded to the interventions. Nine trials were at high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors and three more were at unclear risk in this domain.  Pooled data showed that multi-component non-pharmacological interventions probably reduce the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (10.5% incidence in the intervention group, compared to 18.4% in the control group, risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.71, I2 = 39%; 14 studies; 3693 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to risk of bias).  There may be little or no effect of multicomponent interventions on inpatient mortality compared to usual care (5.2% in the intervention group, compared to 4.5% in the control group, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.74, I2 = 15%; 10 studies; 2640 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to inconsistency and imprecision).  No studies of multicomponent interventions reported data on new diagnoses of dementia.  Multicomponent interventions may result in a small reduction of around a day in the duration of a delirium episode (mean difference (MD) -0.93, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.14 days, I2 = 65%; 351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multicomponent interventions on delirium severity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.49, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.14, I2=64%; 147 participants; very low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and serious imprecision). Multicomponent interventions may result in a reduction in hospital length of stay compared to usual care (MD -1.30 days, 95% CI -2.56 to -0.04 days, I2=91%; 3351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency), but little to no difference in new care home admission at the time of hospital discharge (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.07; 536 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). Reporting of other adverse outcomes was limited.  Our exploratory component network meta-analysis found that re-orientation (including use of familiar objects), cognitive stimulation and sleep hygiene were associated with reduced risk of incident delirium. Attention to nutrition and hydration, oxygenation, medication review, assessment of mood and bowel and bladder care were probably associated with a reduction in incident delirium but estimates included the possibility of no benefit or harm.  Reducing sensory deprivation, identification of infection, mobilisation and pain control all had summary estimates that suggested potential increases in delirium incidence, but the uncertainty in the estimates was substantial.  Evidence from two trials suggests that use of a liberal transfusion threshold over a restrictive transfusion threshold probably results in little to no difference in incident delirium (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.36; I2 = 9%; 294 participants; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias).  Six other interventions were examined, but evidence for each was limited to single studies and we identified no evidence of delirium prevention.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence regarding the benefit of multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in hospitalised adults, estimated to reduce incidence by 43% compared to usual care. We found no evidence of an effect on mortality. There is emerging evidence that these interventions may reduce hospital length of stay, with a trend towards reduced delirium duration, although the effect on delirium severity remains uncertain. Further research should focus on implementation and detailed analysis of the components of the interventions to support more effective, tailored practice recommendations.

Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is an acute neuropsychological disorder that is common in hospitalised patients. It can be distressing to patients and carers and it is associated with serious adverse outcomes. Treatment options for established delirium are limited and so prevention of delirium is desirable. Non-pharmacological interventions are thought to be important in delirium prevention.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions designed to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients outside intensive care units (ICU). SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, with additional searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Portal/ICTRP to 16 September 2020. There were no language or date restrictions applied to the electronic searches, and no methodological filters were used to restrict the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised adults cared for outside intensive care or high dependency settings. We only included non-pharmacological interventions which were designed and implemented to prevent delirium.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently examined titles and abstracts identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data from full-text articles. Any disagreements on eligibility and inclusion were resolved by consensus. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were: incidence of delirium; inpatient and later mortality; and new diagnosis of dementia. We included secondary and adverse outcomes as pre-specified in the review protocol. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes and between-group mean differences for continuous outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. A complementary exploratory analysis was undertaker using a Bayesian component network meta-analysis fixed-effect model to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the individual components of multicomponent interventions and describe which components were most strongly associated with reducing the incidence of delirium. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 RCTs that recruited a total of 5718 adult participants. Fourteen trials compared a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention with usual care. Two trials compared liberal and restrictive blood transfusion thresholds. The remaining six trials each investigated a different non-pharmacological intervention. Incidence of delirium was reported in all studies.  Using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, we identified risks of bias in all included trials. All were at high risk of performance bias as participants and personnel were not blinded to the interventions. Nine trials were at high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors and three more were at unclear risk in this domain.  Pooled data showed that multi-component non-pharmacological interventions probably reduce the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (10.5% incidence in the intervention group, compared to 18.4% in the control group, risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.71, I2 = 39%; 14 studies; 3693 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to risk of bias).  There may be little or no effect of multicomponent interventions on inpatient mortality compared to usual care (5.2% in the intervention group, compared to 4.5% in the control group, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.74, I2 = 15%; 10 studies; 2640 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to inconsistency and imprecision).  No studies of multicomponent interventions reported data on new diagnoses of dementia.  Multicomponent interventions may result in a small reduction of around a day in the duration of a delirium episode (mean difference (MD) -0.93, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.14 days, I2 = 65%; 351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multicomponent interventions on delirium severity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.49, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.14, I2=64%; 147 participants; very low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and serious imprecision). Multicomponent interventions may result in a reduction in hospital length of stay compared to usual care (MD -1.30 days, 95% CI -2.56 to -0.04 days, I2=91%; 3351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency), but little to no difference in new care home admission at the time of hospital discharge (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.07; 536 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). Reporting of other adverse outcomes was limited.  Our exploratory component network meta-analysis found that re-orientation (including use of familiar objects), cognitive stimulation and sleep hygiene were associated with reduced risk of incident delirium. Attention to nutrition and hydration, oxygenation, medication review, assessment of mood and bowel and bladder care were probably associated with a reduction in incident delirium but estimates included the possibility of no benefit or harm.  Reducing sensory deprivation, identification of infection, mobilisation and pain control all had summary estimates that suggested potential increases in delirium incidence, but the uncertainty in the estimates was substantial.  Evidence from two trials suggests that use of a liberal transfusion threshold over a restrictive transfusion threshold probably results in little to no difference in incident delirium (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.36; I2 = 9%; 294 participants; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias).  Six other interventions were examined, but evidence for each was limited to single studies and we identified no evidence of delirium prevention.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence regarding the benefit of multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in hospitalised adults, estimated to reduce incidence by 43% compared to usual care. We found no evidence of an effect on mortality. There is emerging evidence that these interventions may reduce hospital length of stay, with a trend towards reduced delirium duration, although the effect on delirium severity remains uncertain. Further research should focus on implementation and detailed analysis of the components of the interventions to support more effective, tailored practice recommendations.

Women's experiences of a diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) - a transitory form of diabetes induced by pregnancy - has potentially important short and long-term health consequences for both the mother and her baby. There is no globally agreed definition of GDM, but definition changes have increased the incidence in some countries in recent years, with some research suggesting minimal clinical improvement in outcomes. The aim of this qualitative systematic review was to identify the psychosocial experiences a diagnosis of GDM has on women during pregnancy and the postpartum period. METHODS: We searched CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases for studies that provided qualitative data on the psychosocial experiences of a diagnosis of GDM on women across any stage of pregnancy and/or the postpartum period. We appraised the methodological quality of the included studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist for Qualitative Studies and used thematic analysis to synthesis the data. RESULTS: Of 840 studies identified, 41 studies of diverse populations met the selection criteria. The synthesis revealed eight key themes: initial psychological impact; communicating the diagnosis; knowledge of GDM; risk perception; management of GDM; burden of GDM; social support; and gaining control. The identified benefits of a GDM diagnosis were largely behavioural and included an opportunity to make healthy eating changes. The identified harms were emotional, financial and cultural. Women commented about the added responsibility (eating regimens, appointments), financial constraints (expensive food, medical bills) and conflicts with their cultural practices (alternative eating, lack of information about traditional food). Some women reported living in fear of risking the health of their baby and conducted extreme behaviours such as purging and starving themselves. CONCLUSION: A diagnosis of GDM has wide reaching consequences that are common to a diverse group of women. Threshold cut-offs for blood glucose levels have been determined using the risk of physiological harms to mother and baby. It may also be advantageous to consider the harms and benefits from a psychosocial and a physiological perspective. This may avoid unnecessary burden to an already vulnerable population.

Exploring women's priorities for the potential consequences of a gestational diabetes diagnosis: A pilot community jury.

BACKGROUND: There is no international diagnostic agreement for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). In 2014, Australia adopted a new definition and testing procedure. Since then, significantly more women have been diagnosed with GDM but with little difference in health outcomes. We explored the priorities and preferences of women potentially impacted by a GDM diagnosis. METHOD: We recruited 15 women from the Gold Coast, Australia, to participate in a pilot community jury (CJ). Over two days, the women deliberated on the following: (a) which important consequences of a diagnosis of GDM should be considered when defining GDM?; (b) what should Australian health practitioners call the condition known as GDM? RESULTS: Eight women attended the pilot CJ, and their recommendations were a consensus. Women were surprised that the level of risk for physical harms was low but emotional harms were high. The final ranking of important consequences (high to low) was as follows: women's negative emotions; management burden of GDM; overmedicalized pregnancy; minimizing infant risks; improving lifestyle; and macrosomia. To describe the four different clinical states of GDM, the women chose three different labels. One was GDM. CONCLUSIONS: The women from this pilot CJ prioritized the consequences of a diagnosis of GDM differently from clinicians. The current glucose threshold for GDM in Australia is set at a cut-point for adverse risks including macrosomia and neonatal hyperinsulinaemia. Definitions and guideline panels often fail to ask the affected public about their values and preferences. Community voices impacted by health policies should be embedded in the decision-making process.

Nurse-Initiated Acute Stroke Care in Emergency Departments: The Triage, Treatment, and Transfer Implementation Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background and Purpose- We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention to improve triage, treatment, and transfer for patients with acute stroke admitted to the emergency department (ED). Methods- A pragmatic, blinded, multicenter, parallel group, cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted between July 2013 and September 2016 in 26 Australian EDs with stroke units and tPA (tissue-type plasminogen activator) protocols. Hospitals, stratified by state and tPA volume, were randomized 1:1 to intervention or usual care by an independent statistician. Eligible ED patients had acute stroke <48 hours from symptom onset and were admitted to the stroke unit via ED. Our nurse-initiated T3 intervention targeted (1) Triage to Australasian Triage Scale category 1 or 2; (2) Treatment: tPA eligibility screening and appropriate administration; clinical protocols for managing fever, hyperglycemia, and swallowing; (3) prompt (<4 hours) stroke unit Transfer. It was implemented using (1) workshops to identify barriers and solutions; (2) face-to-face, online, and written education; (3) national and local clinical opinion leaders; and (4) email, telephone, and site visit follow-up. Outcomes were assessed at the patient level. Primary outcome: 90-day death or dependency (modified Rankin Scale score of ≥2); secondary outcomes: functional dependency (Barthel Index ≥95), health status (Short Form [36] Health Survey), and ED quality of care (Australasian Triage Scale; monitoring and management of tPA, fever, hyperglycemia, swallowing; prompt transfer). Intention-to-treat analysis adjusted for preintervention outcomes and ED clustering. Patients, outcome assessors, and statisticians were masked to group allocation. Results- Twenty-six EDs (13 intervention and 13 control) recruited 2242 patients (645 preintervention and 1597 postintervention). There were no statistically significant differences at follow-up for 90-day modified Rankin Scale (intervention: n=400 [53.5%]; control n=266 [48.7%]; P=0.24) or secondary outcomes. Conclusions- This evidence-based, theory-informed implementation trial, previously effective in stroke units, did not change patient outcomes or clinician behavior in the complex ED environment. Implementation trials are warranted to evaluate alternative approaches for improving ED stroke care. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://www.anzctr.org.au. Unique identifier: ACTRN12614000939695.

Testing a systematic approach to identify and prioritise barriers to successful implementation of a complex healthcare intervention.

BACKGROUND: Multiple barriers may inhibit the adoption of clinical interventions and impede successful implementation. Use of standardised methods to prioritise barriers to target when selecting implementation interventions is an understudied area of implementation research. The aim of this study was to describe a method to identify and prioritise barriers to the implementation of clinical practice elements which were used to inform the development of the T3 trial implementation intervention (Triage, Treatment [thrombolysis administration; monitoring and management of temperature, blood glucose levels, and swallowing difficulties] and Transfer of stroke patients from Emergency Departments [ED]). METHODS: A survey was developed based on a literature review and data from a complementary trial to identify the commonly reported barriers for the nine T3 clinical care elements. This was administered via a web-based questionnaire to a purposive sample of Australian multidisciplinary clinicians and managers in acute stroke care. The questionnaire addressed barriers to each of the nine T3 trial clinical care elements. Participants produced two ranked lists: on their perception of: firstly, how influential each barrier was in preventing clinicians from performing the clinical care element (influence attribute); and secondly how difficult the barrier was to overcome (difficulty attribute). The rankings for both influence and difficulty were combined to classify the barriers according to three categories ('least desirable', desirable' or 'most desirable' to target) to assist interpretation. RESULTS: All invited participants completed the survey; (n = 17; 35% medical, 35% nursing, 18% speech pathology, 12% bed managers). The barriers classified as most desirable to target and overcome were a 'lack of protocols for the management of fever' and 'not enough blood glucose monitoring machines'. CONCLUSIONS: A structured decision-support procedure has been illustrated and successfully applied to identify and prioritise barriers to target within an implementation intervention. This approach may prove to be a useful in other studies and as an adjunct to undertaking barrier assessments within individual sites when planning implementation interventions.

Implementing a complex rehabilitation intervention in a stroke trial: a qualitative process evaluation of AVERT.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of multidisciplinary stroke rehabilitation interventions is challenging, even when the intervention is evidence-based. Very little is known about the implementation of complex interventions in rehabilitation clinical trials. The aim of study was to better understand how the implementation of a rehabilitation intervention in a clinical trial within acute stroke units is experienced by the staff involved. This qualitative process evaluation was part of a large Phase III stroke rehabilitation trial (AVERT). METHODS: A descriptive qualitative approach was used. We purposively sampled 53 allied health and nursing staff from 19 acute stroke units in Australia, New Zealand and Scotland. Semi-structured interviews were conducted by phone, voice-internet, or face to face. Digitally recorded interviews were transcribed and analysed by two researchers using rigorous thematic analysis. RESULTS: Our analysis uncovered ten important themes that provide insight into the challenges of implementing complex new rehabilitation practices within complex care settings, plus factors and strategies that assisted implementation. Themes were grouped into three main categories: staff experience of implementing the trial intervention, barriers to implementation, and overcoming the barriers. Participation in the trial was challenging but had personal rewards and improved teamwork at some sites. Over the years that the trial ran some staff perceived a change in usual care. Barriers to trial implementation at some sites included poor teamwork, inadequate staffing, various organisational barriers, staff attitudes and beliefs, and patient-related barriers. Participants described successful implementation strategies that were built on interdisciplinary teamwork, education and strong leadership to 'get staff on board', and developing different ways of working. CONCLUSIONS: The AVERT stroke rehabilitation trial required commitment to deliver an intervention that needed strong collaboration between nurses and physiotherapists and was different to current care models. This qualitative process evaluation contributes unique insights into factors that may be critical to successful trials teams, and as AVERT was a pragmatic trial, success factors to delivering complex intervention in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: AVERT registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12606000185561 .

Two Decades of Overuse and Underuse of Interventions for Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases: A Systematic Review.

Quality use of anti-hypertensive and cholesterol-lowering medications is crucial for successful cardiovascular disease management. This systematic review aimed to estimate levels of over and underuse of services for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases from 2000 to 2020: overprescribing/underprescribing, overtesting/undertesting and overutilization/ underutilization of procedures compared to clinical practice guideline recommendations. Thirteen studies from USA, Europe, Asia and Australia were included. Wide practice variation was identified. Six studies reported overuse (eg, perioperative cardiac consultations, anti-hypertensive overprescribing for normotensive or pre-hypertensive people); and ten studies reported underuse (eg, under-prescribing of statins when indicated and under-screening for familial hypercholesterolemia). Lifestyle recommendations for cardiovascular disease prevention were largely underused. In summary, lack of adherence to published guidelines was prevalent over the past 2 decades for both primary and secondary prevention across settings. Further investigation of potentially justifiable deviations from guidelines are warranted to verify the estimates and identify points for intervention.

Guideline Adherence As An Indicator of the Extent of Antithrombotic Overuse and Underuse: A Systematic Review.

Thromboembolic events are a common risk in adults with atrial fibrillation, those with previous cerebrovascular accidents and undergoing emergency or elective surgeries. The widespread availability of antithrombotic agents and differing guidelines contribute to practice variations and increased risk of complications and deaths. The objective of this review was to investigate the extent of overuse and underuse of antithrombotics for primary or secondary prevention as measured by deviation from prescribing guideline recommendations. We conducted a systematic review of Medline and EMBASE for quantitative articles published between 2000 and 2021 and used a modified version of the Hoy's risk of bias assessment tool. Here we report evidence from the past decade about wide practice variations in hospitals and primary care, and discuss clinician and patient-driven determinants of non-adherence to guidelines. Finally, we summarise implications for practice, identify enhanced ways of measuring overuse and underuse, and propose potential solutions to the measurement challenges.

Early mobilization after stroke: an example of an individual patient data meta-analysis of a complex intervention.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Very early mobilization (VEM) is a distinctive characteristic of care in some stroke units; however, evidence of the effectiveness of this approach is limited. To date, only 2 phase II trials have compared VEM with standard care: A Very Early Rehabilitation Trial (AVERT) in Australia and the recently completed Very Early Rehabilitation or Intensive Telemetry after Stroke trial in the United Kingdom. The Very Early Rehabilitation or Intensive Telemetry after Stroke protocol was designed to complement that of AVERT in a number of key areas. The aim of this analysis was to investigate the impact of VEM on independence by pooling data from these 2 comparable trials. METHODS: Individual data from the 2 trials were pooled. Overall, patients were between 27 and 97 years old, had first or recurring stroke, and were treated within 36 hours after stroke onset. The primary outcome was independence, defined as modified Rankin scale score of 0 to 2 at 3 months. The secondary outcomes included complications of immobility and activities of daily living. Logistic regression was used to assess the effect of VEM on outcome, adjusting for known confounders including age, baseline stroke severity, and premorbid modified Rankin scale score. Findings-All patients in AVERT and Very Early Rehabilitation or Intensive Telemetry after Stroke were included, resulting in 54 patients in the VEM group and 49 patients in the standard care group. The baseline characteristics of VEM patients were largely comparable with standard care patients. Time to first mobilization from symptom onset was significantly shorter among VEM patients (median, 21 hours; interquartile range, 15.8-27.8 hours) compared with standard care patients (median, 31 hours; interquartile range, 23.0-41.2 hours). VEM patients had significantly greater odds of independence compared with standard care patients (adjusted odds ratio, 3.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-9.33). CONCLUSIONS: Planned collaborations between stroke researchers to conduct trials with common protocols and outcome measures can help advance rehabilitation science. VEM was associated with improved independence at 3 months compared with standard care. However, both trials are limited by small sample sizes. Larger trials (such as AVERT phase III) are still needed in this field.

Does the Addition of Non-Approved Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for rtPA Impact Treatment Rates? Findings in Australia, the UK, and the USA.

BACKGROUND: Strict criteria for recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) eligibility are stipulated on licences for use in ischaemic stroke; however, practitioners may also add non-standard rtPA criteria. We examined eligibility criteria variation in 3 English-speaking countries including use of non-standard criteria, in relation to rtPA treatment rates. METHODS: Surveys were mailed to 566 eligible hospitals in Australia (AUS), the UK, and the USA. Criteria were pre-classified as standard (approved indication and contraindications) or non-standard (approved warning or researcher "decoy"). Percentage for criterion selection was calculated/compared; linear regression was used to assess the association between use of non-standard criteria and rtPA treatment rates, and to identify factors associated with addition of non-standard criteria. RESULTS: Response rates were 74% AUS, 65% UK, and 68% USA; mean rtPA treatment rates were 8.7% AUS, 12.7% UK, and 8.7% USA. Median percentage of non-standard inclusions was 33% (all 3 countries) and included National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores > 4, computed tomography (CT) angiography documented occlusion, and favourable CT perfusion. Median percentage of non-standard exclusions was 25% AUS, 28% UK, and 60% USA, and included depressed consciousness, NIHSS > 25, and use of antihypertensive infusions. No AUS or UK sites selected 100% of standard exclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Non-standard criteria for rtPA eligibility were evident in all three countries and could, in part, explain comparably low use of rtPA. Differences in the use of standard criteria may signify practitioner intolerance for those derived from original efficacy studies that are no longer relevant.

Process evaluation of an implementation trial to improve the triage, treatment and transfer of stroke patients in emergency departments (T3 trial): a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of evidence-based protocols for stroke management in the emergency department (ED) for the appropriate triage, administration of tissue plasminogen activator to eligible patients, management of fever, hyperglycaemia and swallowing, and prompt transfer to a stroke unit were evaluated in an Australian cluster-randomised trial (T3 trial) conducted at 26 emergency departments. There was no reduction in 90-day death or dependency nor improved processes of ED care. We conducted an a priori planned process influential factors that impacted upon protocol uptake. METHODS: Qualitative face-to-face interviews were conducted with purposively selected ED and stroke clinicians from two high- and two low-performing intervention sites about their views on factors that influenced protocol uptake. All Trial State Co-ordinators (n = 3) who supported the implementation at the 13 intervention sites were also interviewed. Data were analysed thematically using normalisation process theory as a sensitising framework to understand key findings, and compared and contrasted between interviewee groups. RESULTS: Twenty-five ED and stroke clinicians, and three Trial State Co-ordinators were interviewed. Three major themes represented key influences on evidence uptake: (i) Readiness to change: reflected strategies to mobilise and engage clinical teams to foster cognitive participation and collective action; (ii) Fidelity to the protocols: reflected that beliefs about the evidence underpinning the protocols impeded the development of a shared understanding about the applicability of the protocols in the ED context (coherence); and (iii) Boundaries of care: reflected that appraisal (reflexive monitoring) by ED and stroke teams about their respective boundaries of clinical practice impeded uptake of the protocols. CONCLUSIONS: Despite initial high 'buy-in' from clinicians, a theoretically informed and comprehensive implementation strategy was unable to overcome system and clinician level barriers. Initiatives to drive change and integrate protocols rested largely with senior nurses who had to overcome contextual factors that fell outside their control, including low medical engagement, beliefs about the supporting evidence and perceptions of professional boundaries. To maximise uptake of evidence and adherence to intervention fidelity in complex clinical settings such as ED cost-effective strategies are needed to overcome these barriers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12614000939695 ).

Inclusion of a care bundle for fever, hyperglycaemia and swallow management in a National Audit for acute stroke: evidence of upscale and spread.

BACKGROUND: In the Quality in Acute Stroke Care (QASC) trial undertaken in stroke units (SUs) located in New South Wales (NSW), Australia (2005-2010), facilitated implementation of a nurse-led care bundle to manage fever, hyperglycaemia and swallowing (FeSS protocols) reduced death and disability for patients with stroke. We aimed to determine subsequent adherence to the bundled FeSS processes (reflective of the protocols) between 2013 and 2017 in Australian hospitals, and examine whether changes in adherence to these processes varied based on previous participation in the QASC trial or subsequent statewide scale-up (QASCIP-Quality in Acute Stroke Care Implementation Project) and presence of an SU. METHODS: Cross-sectional, observational study using self-reported organisational survey and retrospective clinical audit data from the National Acute Services Stroke Audit (2013, 2015, 2017). Mixed-effects logistic regression was performed with dependent variables: (1) composite outcome measure reflecting compliance with the FeSS protocols and (2) individual FeSS processes, including the year of audit as an independent variable, adjusted for correlation of outcomes within hospital. Separate models including interaction terms between the year of audit and previous participation in QASC/QASCIP and year of audit and SU were also generated. RESULTS: Hospital participation included the following: 2013-124 hospitals, 3741 cases; 2015-112 hospitals, 4087 cases; and 2017-117 hospitals, 4192 cases. An 80% increase in the odds of receiving the composite outcome in 2017 compared to 2013 was found (2013, 30%; 2017, 41%; OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.6, 2.0; p < 0.001). The odds of FeSS adherence from 2013 to 2017 was greater for hospitals that had participated in QASC/QASCIP relative to those that had not (participated OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.7, 2.7; not participated OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4, 1.8; p = 0.03). Similar uptake in adherence was evident in hospitals with and without an SU between 2013 and 2017. CONCLUSION: The use of the FeSS protocols within Australia increased from 2013 to 2017 with the inclusion of these care processes in the National Audit. Greater uptake in hospitals previously involved in QASC/QASCIP was evident. Our implementation methods may be useful for other national initiatives for improving access to evidence-based practice.

The interaction between policy and education using stroke as an example.

This paper discusses the interaction between healthcare policy at the European, UK and Scottish levels and the funding of education that underpins specific health policy priorities. Stroke is used throughout to illustrate the relationship between a designated European and UK health priority and the translation of that priority into clinical delivery. The necessity to build a responsive and sustainable culture to address the healthcare education that underpins changing healthcare policies is emphasized.

The evidence-base for stroke education in care homes.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS: 1. What are registered care home nurses' educational priorities regarding stroke care? 2. What are senior care home assistants' educational priorities regarding stroke care? 3. How do care home nurses conceive stroke care will be delivered in 2010? STUDY DESIGN: This was a 2-year study using focus groups, stroke guidelines, professional recommendations and stroke literature for the development of a questionnaire survey for data collection. Workshops provided study feedback to participants. Data were collected in 2005-2006. STUDY SITE: Greater Glasgow NHS Health Board. POPULATION AND SAMPLE: A stratified random selection of 16 private, 3 voluntary and 6 NHS continuing care homes from which a sample of 115 trained nurses and 19 senior care assistants was drawn. RESULTS: The overall response rate for care home nurses was 64.3% and for senior care assistants, 73.6%. Both care home nurses and senior care assistants preferred accredited stroke education. Care home nurses wanted more training in stroke assessment, rehabilitation and acute interventions whereas senior care assistants wanted more in managing depression, general stroke information and communicating with dysphasic residents. Senior care assistants needed more information on multidisciplinary team working while care home nurses were more concerned with ethical decision-making, accountability and goal setting. CONCLUSIONS: Care home staff need and want more stroke training. They are clear that stroke education should be to the benefit of their resident population. Guidelines on stroke care should be developed for care homes and these should incorporate support for continuing professional learning in relation to the resident who has had a stroke.

Stroke education for healthcare professionals: making it fit for purpose.

TITLE: Stroke education for healthcare professionals: Making it fit for purpose. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: 1. What are healthcare professionals' (HCPs) educational priorities regarding stroke care? 2. Do stroke care priorities vary across the primary and secondary sectors? 3. How do HCPs conceive stroke care will be delivered in 2010? STUDY DESIGN: This was a two-year study using focus groups and interviews for instrument development, questionnaires for data collection and workshops to provide study feedback. Data were collected in 2005-06. STUDY SITE: One Scottish health board. INCLUSION CRITERIA: All National Health Service healthcare professionals working wherever stroke care occurred. POPULATION AND SAMPLE: Participants were drawn from 4 university teaching hospitals, 2 community hospitals, 1 geriatric medicine day hospital, 48 general practices (GPs), 12 care homes and 15 community teams. The sample comprised 155 doctors, 313 nurses, 133 therapists (physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists), and 29 'other HCPs' (14 dieticians, 7 pharmacists, 2 podiatrists and 6 psychologists). RESULTS: HCPs prefer face-to-face, accredited education but blended approaches are required that accommodate uni- and multidisciplinary demands. Doctors and nurses are more inclined towards discipline-specific training compared to therapists and other healthcare professionals (HCPs). HCPs in primary care and stroke units want more information on the social impact of stroke while those working in stroke units in particular are concerned with leadership in the multidisciplinary team. Nurses are the most interested in teaching patients and carers. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke requires more specialist stroke staff, the upskilling of current staff and a national education pathway given that stroke care is most effectively managed by specialists with specific clinical skills. The current government push towards a flexible workforce is welcome but should be educationally-sound and recognise the career aspirations of healthcare professionals.

Development of a theory-informed implementation intervention to improve the triage, treatment and transfer of stroke patients in emergency departments using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF): the T3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Theoretical frameworks and models based on behaviour change theories are increasingly used in the development of implementation interventions. Development of an implementation intervention is often based on the available evidence base and practical issues, i.e. feasibility and acceptability. The aim of this study was to describe the development of an implementation intervention for the T3 Trial (Triage, Treatment and Transfer of patients with stroke in emergency departments (EDs)) using theory to recommend behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and drawing on the research evidence base and practical issues of feasibility and acceptability. METHODS: A stepped method for developing complex interventions based on theory, evidence and practical issues was adapted using the following steps: (1) Who needs to do what, differently? (2) Using a theoretical framework, which barriers and enablers need to be addressed? (3) Which intervention components (behaviour change techniques and mode(s) of delivery) could overcome the modifiable barriers and enhance the enablers? A researcher panel was convened to review the list of BCTs recommended for use and to identify the most feasible and acceptable techniques to adopt. RESULTS: Seventy-six barriers were reported by hospital staff who attended the workshops (step 1: thirteen TDF domains likely to influence the implementation of the T3 Trial clinical intervention were identified by the researchers; step 2: the researcher panellists then selected one third of the BCTs recommended for use as appropriate for the clinical context of the ED and, using the enabler workshop data, devised enabling strategies for each of the selected BCTs; and step 3: the final implementation intervention consisted of 27 BCTs). CONCLUSIONS: The TDF was successfully applied in all steps of developing an implementation intervention for the T3 Trial clinical intervention. The use of researcher panel opinion was an essential part of the BCT selection process to incorporate both research evidence and expert judgment. It is recommended that this stepped approach (theory, evidence and practical issues of feasibility and acceptability) is used to develop highly reportable implementation interventions. The classifying of BCTs using recognised implementation intervention components will facilitate generalisability and sharing across different conditions and clinical settings.