Six-month reviews for stroke survivors: a study of the modified Greater Manchester Stroke Assessment Tool with care home residents.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the feasibility of using a stroke-specific toolkit for six-month post-stroke reviews in care homes to identify unmet needs and actions. DESIGN: An observational study including qualitative interviews to explore the process and outcome of reviews. SETTING: UK care homes. PARTICIPANTS: Stroke survivors, family members, care home staff (review participants) and external staff involved in conducting reviews (assessors). INTERVENTIONS: Modified Greater Manchester Stroke Assessment Tool (GM-SAT). RESULTS: The observational study provided data on 74 stroke survivors across 51 care homes. In total, out of 74, 45 (61%) had unmet needs identified. Common unmet needs related to blood pressure, mobility, medicine management and mood. We conducted 25 qualitative interviews, including 13 review participants and 12 assessors. Three overarching qualitative themes covered acceptability of conducting reviews in care homes, process and outcomes of reviews, and acceptability of modified GM-SAT review toolkit. The modified GM-SAT review was positively valued, but stroke survivors had poor recall of the review event including the actions agreed. Care home staff sometimes assisted with reviews and highlighted their need for training to support day-to-day needs of stroke survivors. Assessors highlighted a need for clearer guidance on the use of the toolkit and suggested further modifications to enhance it. They also identified organizational barriers and facilitators to implementing reviews and communicating planned actions to GPs and other agencies. CONCLUSION: The modified GM-SAT provides a feasible means of conducting six-month reviews for stroke survivors in care homes and helps identify important needs. Further modifications have enhanced acceptability. Full implementation into practice requires staff training and organizational changes.

Impact and sustainability of centralising acute stroke services in English metropolitan areas: retrospective analysis of hospital episode statistics and stroke national audit data.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether further centralisation of acute stroke services in Greater Manchester in 2015 was associated with changes in outcomes and whether the effects of centralisation of acute stroke services in London in 2010 were sustained. DESIGN: Retrospective analyses of patient level data from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database linked to mortality data from the Office for National Statistics, and the Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme (SSNAP). SETTING: Acute stroke services in Greater Manchester and London, England. PARTICIPANTS: 509 182 stroke patients in HES living in urban areas admitted between January 2008 and March 2016; 218 120 stroke patients in SSNAP between April 2013 and March 2016. INTERVENTIONS: Hub and spoke models for acute stroke care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality at 90 days after hospital admission; length of acute hospital stay; treatment in a hyperacute stroke unit; 19 evidence based clinical interventions. RESULTS: In Greater Manchester, borderline evidence suggested that risk adjusted mortality at 90 days declined overall; a significant decline in mortality was seen among patients treated at a hyperacute stroke unit (difference-in-differences -1.8% (95% confidence interval -3.4 to -0.2)), indicating 69 fewer deaths per year. A significant decline was seen in risk adjusted length of acute hospital stay overall (-1.5 (-2.5 to -0.4) days; P<0.01), indicating 6750 fewer bed days a year. The number of patients treated in a hyperacute stroke unit increased from 39% in 2010-12 to 86% in 2015/16. In London, the 90 day mortality rate was sustained (P>0.05), length of hospital stay declined (P<0.01), and more than 90% of patients were treated in a hyperacute stroke unit. Achievement of evidence based clinical interventions generally remained constant or improved in both areas. CONCLUSIONS: Centralised models of acute stroke care, in which all stroke patients receive hyperacute care, can reduce mortality and length of acute hospital stay and improve provision of evidence based clinical interventions. Effects can be sustained over time.

The potential role of cost-utility analysis in the decision to implement major system change in acute stroke services in metropolitan areas in England.

BACKGROUND: The economic implications of major system change are an important component of the decision to implement health service reconfigurations. Little is known about how best to report the results of economic evaluations of major system change to inform decision-makers. Reconfiguration of acute stroke care in two metropolitan areas in England, namely London and Greater Manchester (GM), was used to analyse the economic implications of two different implementation strategies for major system change. METHODS: A decision analytic model was used to calculate difference-in-differences in costs and outcomes before and after the implementation of two major system change strategies in stroke care in London and GM. Values in the model were based on patient level data from Hospital Episode Statistics, linked mortality data from the Office of National Statistics and data from two national stroke audits. Results were presented as net monetary benefit (NMB) and using Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA) to assess the costs and benefits of a hypothetical typical region in England with approximately 4000 strokes a year. RESULTS: In London, after 90 days, there were nine fewer deaths per 1000 patients compared to the rest of England (95% CI -24 to 6) at an additional cost of £770,027 per 1000 stroke patients admitted. There were two additional deaths (95% CI -19 to 23) in GM, with a total costs saving of £156,118 per 1000 patients compared to the rest of England. At a £30,000 willingness to pay the NMB was higher in London and GM than the rest of England over the same time period. The results of the PBMA suggest that a GM style reconfiguration could result in a total greater health benefit to a region. Implementation costs were £136 per patient in London and £75 in GM. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of major system change in acute stroke care may result in a net health benefit to a region, even one functioning within a fixed budget. The choice of what model of stroke reconfiguration to implement may depend on the relative importance of clinical versus cost outcomes.

What is rehabilitation potential? Development of a theoretical model through the accounts of healthcare professionals working in stroke rehabilitation services.

INTRODUCTION: Multi-disciplinary team members predict each patient's rehabilitation potential to maximise best use of resources. A lack of underpinning theory about rehabilitation potential makes it difficult to apply this concept in clinical practice. This study theorises about rehabilitation potential drawing on everyday decision-making by Health Care Professionals (HCPs) working in stroke rehabilitation services. METHODS: A clinical scenario, checked for face validity, was used in two focus groups to explore meaning and practice around rehabilitation potential. Participants were 12 HCPs working across the stroke pathway. Groups were co-facilitated, audio-recorded and fully transcribed. Analysis paid attention to data grounded in first-hand experience, convergence within and across groups and constructed a conceptual overview of HCPs' judgements about rehabilitation potential. RESULTS: Rehabilitation potential is predicted by observations of "carry-over" and functional gain and managed differently across recovery trajectories. HCPs' responses to rehabilitation potential judgements include prioritising workload, working around the system and balancing optimism and realism. Impacts for patients are streaming of rehabilitation intensity, rationing access to rehabilitation and a shifting emphasis between management and active rehabilitation. For staff, the emotional burden of judging rehabilitation potential is significant. Current service organisation restricts opportunities for feedback on the accuracy of previous judgements. CONCLUSION: Patients should have the opportunity to demonstrate rehabilitation potential by participation in therapy. As therapy resources are limited and responses to therapy may be context-dependent, early decisions about a lack of potential should not limit longer-term opportunities for rehabilitation. Services should develop strategies to enhance the quality of judgements through feedback to HCPs of longer-term patient outcomes. Implications for Rehabilitation Rehabilitation potential is judged at the level of individual patients (rather than population-based predictive models of rehabilitation outcome), draws on different sources of often experiential knowledge, and may be less than reliable. Decisions about rehabilitation potential may have far reaching consequences for individual patients, including the withdrawal of active rehabilitation in hospital or in the community and eventual care placement. A better understanding of what people mean by rehabilitation potential by all team members, and by patients and carers, may improve the quality of joint decision making and communication.

Derivation and external validation of a case mix model for the standardized reporting of 30-day stroke mortality rates.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Case mix adjustment is required to allow valid comparison of outcomes across care providers. However, there is a lack of externally validated models suitable for use in unselected stroke admissions. We therefore aimed to develop and externally validate prediction models to enable comparison of 30-day post-stroke mortality outcomes using routine clinical data. METHODS: Models were derived (n=9000 patients) and internally validated (n=18 169 patients) using data from the Sentinel Stroke National Audit Program, the national register of acute stroke in England and Wales. External validation (n=1470 patients) was performed in the South London Stroke Register, a population-based longitudinal study. Models were fitted using general estimating equations. Discrimination and calibration were assessed using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and correlation plots. RESULTS: Two final models were derived. Model A included age (<60, 60-69, 70-79, 80-89, and ≥90 years), National Institutes of Health Stroke Severity Score (NIHSS) on admission, presence of atrial fibrillation on admission, and stroke type (ischemic versus primary intracerebral hemorrhage). Model B was similar but included only the consciousness component of the NIHSS in place of the full NIHSS. Both models showed excellent discrimination and calibration in internal and external validation. The c-statistics in external validation were 0.87 (95% confidence interval, 0.84-0.89) and 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.89) for models A and B, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We have derived and externally validated 2 models to predict mortality in unselected patients with acute stroke using commonly collected clinical variables. In settings where the ability to record the full NIHSS on admission is limited, the level of consciousness component of the NIHSS provides a good approximation of the full NIHSS for mortality prediction.

The study protocol of: 'Initiating end of life care in stroke: clinical decision-making around prognosis'.

BACKGROUND: The initiation of end of life care in an acute stroke context should be focused on those patients and families with greatest need. This requires clinicians to synthesise information on prognosis, patterns (trajectories) of dying and patient and family preferences. Within acute stroke, prognostic models are available to identify risks of dying, but variability in dying trajectories makes it difficult for clinicians to know when to commence palliative interventions. This study aims to investigate clinicians' use of different types of evidence in decisions to initiate end of life care within trajectories typical of the acute stroke population. METHODS/DESIGN: This two-phase, mixed methods study comprises investigation of dying trajectories in acute stroke (Phase 1), and the use of clinical scenarios to investigate clinical decision-making in the initiation of palliative care (Phase 2). It will be conducted in four acute stroke services in North Wales and North West England. Patient and public involvement is integral to this research, with service users involved at each stage. DISCUSSION: This study will be the first to examine whether patterns of dying reported in other diagnostic groups are transferable to acute stroke care. The strengths and limitations of the study will be considered. This research will produce comprehensive understanding of the nature of clinical decision-making around end of life care in an acute stroke context, which in turn will inform the development of interventions to further build staff knowledge, skills and confidence in this challenging aspect of acute stroke care.

Improving care for people after stroke: how change was actively facilitated.

PURPOSE: This paper aims to report on the approach to change used in the development of a tool to assess patient status six months after stroke (the Greater Manchester Stroke Assessment Tool: GM-SAT). DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The overall approach to change is based on the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) Framework, which involves extensive stakeholder engagement before implementation. A key feature was the use of a facilitator without previous clinical experience. FINDINGS: The active process of change involved a range of stakeholders--commissioners, patients and professionals--as well as review of published research evidence. The result of this process was the creation of the GM-SAT. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The details of the decision processes within the tool included a range of perspectives; the process of localisation led commissioners to identify gaps in care provision as well as learning from others in terms of how services might be provided and organised. The facilitator role was key at all stages in bringing together the wide range of perspectives; the relatively neutral perceived status of the facilitator enabled resistance to change to be minimised. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The output of this project, the GM-SAT, has the potential to significantly improve patients' physical, psychological and social outcomes and optimise their quality of life. This will be explored further in future phases of work. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: A structured process of change which included multiple stakeholder involvement throughout, localisation of approaches and a dedicated independent facilitator role was effective in achieving the development of a useful tool (GM-SAT).

Innovations in major system reconfiguration in England: a study of the effectiveness, acceptability and processes of implementation of two models of stroke care.

BACKGROUND: Significant changes in provision of clinical care within the English National Health Service (NHS) have been discussed in recent years, with proposals to concentrate specialist services in fewer centres. Stroke is a major public health issue, accounting for over 10% of deaths in England and Wales, and much disability among survivors. Variations have been highlighted in stroke care, with many patients not receiving evidence-based care. To address these concerns, stroke services in London and Greater Manchester were reorganised, although different models were implemented. This study will analyse processes involved in making significant changes to stroke care services over a short time period, and the factors influencing these processes. We will examine whether the changes have delivered improvements in quality of care and patient outcomes; and, in light of this, whether the significant extra financial investment represented good value for money. METHODS/DESIGN: This study brings together quantitative data on 'what works and at what cost?' with qualitative data on 'understanding implementation and sustainability' to understand major system change in two large conurbations in England. Data on processes of care and their outcomes (e.g. morbidity, mortality, and cost) will be analysed to evidence services' performance before and after reconfiguration. The evaluation draws on theories related to the dissemination and sustainability of innovations and the 'social matrix' underlying processes of innovation. We will conduct a series of case studies based on stakeholder interviews and documentary analysis. These will identify drivers for change, how the reconfigurations were governed, developed, and implemented, and how they influenced service quality. DISCUSSION: The research faces challenges due to: the different timings of the reconfigurations; the retrospective nature of the evaluation; and the current organisational turbulence in the English NHS. However, these issues reflect the realities of major systems change and its evaluation. The methods applied in the study have been selected to account for and learn from these complexities, and will provide useful lessons for future reconfigurations, both in stroke care and other specialties.

Effectiveness of enhanced communication therapy in the first four months after stroke for aphasia and dysarthria: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of enhanced communication therapy in the first four months after stroke compared with an attention control (unstructured social contact). DESIGN: Externally randomised, pragmatic, parallel, superiority trial with blinded outcome assessment. SETTING: Twelve UK hospital and community stroke services. PARTICIPANTS: 170 adults (mean age 70 years) randomised within two weeks of admission to hospital with stroke (December 2006 to January 2010) whom speech and language therapists deemed eligible, and 135 carers. INTERVENTIONS: Enhanced, agreed best practice, communication therapy specific to aphasia or dysarthria, offered by speech and language therapists according to participants' needs for up to four months, with continuity from hospital to community. Comparison was with similarly resourced social contact (without communication therapy) from employed visitors. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was blinded, functional communicative ability at six months on the Therapy Outcome Measure (TOM) activity subscale. Secondary outcomes (unblinded, six months): participants' perceptions on the Communication Outcomes After Stroke scale (COAST); carers' perceptions of participants from part of the Carer COAST; carers' wellbeing on Carers of Older People in Europe Index and quality of life items from Carer COAST; and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Therapist and visitor contact both had good uptake from service users. An average 22 contacts (intervention or control) over 13 weeks were accepted by users. Impairment focused therapy was the approach most often used by the speech and language therapists. Visitors most often provided general conversation. In total, 81/85 of the intervention group and 72/85 of the control group completed the primary outcome measure. Both groups improved on the TOM activity subscale. The estimated six months group difference was not statistically significant, with 0.25 (95% CI -0.19 to 0.69) points in favour of therapy. Sensitivity analyses that adjusted for chance baseline imbalance further reduced this difference. Per protocol analyses rejected a possible dilution of treatment effect from controls declining their allocation and receiving usual care. There was no added benefit of therapy on secondary outcome measures, subgroup analyses (such as aphasia), or serious adverse events, although the latter were less common after intervention (odds ratio 0.42 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.1)). CONCLUSIONS: Communication therapy had no added benefit beyond that from everyday communication in the first four months after stroke. Future research should evaluate reorganised services that support functional communication practice early in the stroke pathway. This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (project No 02/11/04) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment 2012;16(26):1-160. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN78617680.