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.

Comparisons between group- and individual-based interventions to support recovery from stroke and ischaemic heart disease in the community: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: To map and summarise available literature on the effectiveness or other benefits of group- and individual-based interventions provided for adults living with stroke or ischaemic heart disease (IHD) in the community. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The review was conducted based on JBI methodology and reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Articles were retrieved from: Medline, PsychInfo, Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL from 2002-2022. Extracted data from eligible studies included type of health outcomes (e.g., impairments), retention and adherence, social connectedness, and the costs associated with group- and individual-based interventions. RESULTS: After screening, five articles (representing 4 unique studies) comparing a group- and individual-based intervention were included (total sample size n = 87). Three types of interventions were assessed: exercise (3/5), communication (1/5), and occupational therapy (1/5). Effectiveness of group- and individual-based interventions at improving health outcomes (i.e. physical ability, communication, motivation, and quality of life) is unclear. Currently there is insufficient evidence to guide clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence comparing interventions delivered in a group and individual modality for adults living with stroke or IHD. Adequately powered studies are needed to determine if mode of delivery is equivalent or more cost effective.

Rehabilitation interventions can be offered individually or in group settings with clinicians choosing the most appropriate modality.Both group- and individual-based interventions have advantages and disadvantages, with clinical, practical, and economic factors as important considerations when deciding between the two modalities.Based on this scoping review, the authors conclude that there is currently insufficient evidence to guide clinical practice in deciding which mode of delivery (group or individual) is optimal.There is insufficient research evidence to guide clinicians in their choice between offering rehabilitation interventions for stroke or IHD in groups or individually.

Feedback of aggregate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) data to clinicians and hospital end users: findings from an Australian codesign workshop process.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used to measure the patient's perspective of their outcomes following healthcare interventions. The aim of this study was to determine the preferred formats for reporting service-level PROs data to clinicians, researchers and managers to support greater utility of these data to improve healthcare and patient outcomes. SETTING: Healthcare professionals receiving PRO data feedback at the health service level. PARTICIPANTS: An interdisciplinary Project Working Group comprised of clinicians participated in three workshops to codesign reporting templates of summarised PRO data (modified Rankin Scale, EuroQol Five Dimension Descriptive System, EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) using a modified Delphi process. An electronic survey was then distributed to short list the preferred templates among a broad sample of clinical end users. A final workshop was undertaken with the Project Working Group to review results and reach consensus on the final templates. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The recommendation of preferred PRO summary data feedback templates and guiding principles for reporting aggregate PRO data to clinicians was the primary outcome. A secondary outcome was the identification of perceived barriers and enablers to the use of PRO data in hospitals. For each outcome measure, quantitative and qualitative data were summarised. RESULTS: 31 Working Group members (19 stroke, 2 psychology, 1 pharmacy, 9 researchers) participated in the workshops, where 25/55 templates were shortlisted for wider assessment. The survey was completed by 114 end users. Strongest preferences were identified for bar charts (37/82 votes, 45%) and stacked bar charts (37/91 votes, 41%). At the final workshop, recommendations to enhance communication of PROs data for comparing health service performance were made including tailoring feedback to professional roles and use of case-mix adjustment to ensure fair comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Our research provides guidance on PROs reporting for optimising data interpretation and comparing hospital performance.

Feedback of patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals for comparing health service performance: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide self-reported patient assessments of their quality of life, daily functioning, and symptom severity after experiencing an illness and having contact with the health system. Feeding back summarised PROs data, aggregated at the health-service level, to healthcare professionals may inform clinical practice and quality improvement efforts. However, little is known about the best methods for providing these summarised data in a way that is meaningful for this audience. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to summarise the emerging approaches to PROs data for 'service-level' feedback to healthcare professionals. SETTING: Healthcare professionals receiving PROs data feedback at the health-service level. DATA SOURCES: Databases selected for the search were Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and targeted web searching. The main search terms included: 'patient-reported outcome measures', 'patient-reported outcomes', 'patient-centred care', 'value-based care', 'quality improvement' and 'feedback'. Studies included were those that were published in English between January 2009 and June 2019. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Data were extracted on the feedback methods of PROs to patients or healthcare providers. A standardised template was used to extract information from included documents and academic publications. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Levels of Evidence for Effectiveness. RESULTS: Overall, 3480 articles were identified after de-duplication. Of these, 19 academic publications and 22 documents from the grey literature were included in the final review. Guiding principles for data display methods and graphical formats were identified. Seven major factors that may influence PRO data interpretation and use by healthcare professionals were also identified. CONCLUSION: While a single best format or approach to feedback PROs data to healthcare professionals was not identified, numerous guiding principles emerged to inform the field.