A Stepped-Wedge Cluster-Randomized Trial to Improve Adherence to Evidence-Based Practices for Acute Stroke Management.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence regarding the optimal design and composition of multifaceted quality improvement programs to improve acute stroke care. The researchers aimed to test the effectiveness of a co-designed multifaceted intervention (STELAR: Shared Team Efforts Leading to Adherence Results) directed at hospital clinicians for improving acute stroke care tailored to the local context using feedback of national registry indicator data. METHODS: STELAR was a stepped-wedge cluster trial (partial randomization) using routinely collected Australian Stroke Clinical Registry data from Victorian hospitals segmented in two-month blocks. Each hospital (cluster) contributed control data from May 2017 and data for the intervention phase from July 2017 until September 2018. The intervention was multifaceted, delivered predominantly in two educational outreach workshops by experienced, external improvement facilitators, consisting of (1) feedback of registry data to identify practice gaps and (2) interprofessional education, barrier assessment, and documentation of an agreed action plan initiated by local clinical leaders appointed as change champions for prioritized clinical indicators. The researchers provided additional outreach support by e-mail/telephone for two months. Multilevel, multivariable regression models were used to assess change in a composite outcome of indicators selected for actions plans (primary outcome) and individual indicators (secondary outcome). Patient survival and disability 90-180 days after stroke were also compared. RESULTS: Nine hospitals (clusters) participated, and 144 clinicians attended 18 intervention workshops. The control phase included 1,001 patients (median age 76.7 years; 47.4% female, 64.7% ischemic stroke), and the intervention phase 2,146 patients (median age 74.9 years; 44.2% female, 73.8% ischemic stroke). Compared to the control phase, the median score for the composite outcome for the intervention phase was 17% greater for the indicators included in the hospitals' action plans (range 3% to 30%, p = 0.016) and overall for the 10 indicators 6% greater (range 3% to 10%, p < 0.001). Compared to the control phase, patients in the intervention phase more often received stroke unit care (odds ratio [OR] 1.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.84), were discharged on antithrombotic medications (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.50-2.33), and received a discharge care plan (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05-1.53). Patient outcomes were unchanged. CONCLUSION: External quality improvement facilitation using workshops and remote support, aligned with routine monitoring via registries, can improve acute stroke care.

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.