How is hydration assessed and managed in acute stroke? A qualitative study of healthcare staff's knowledge, attitudes and experiences.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore healthcare staff's experiences of how dehydration is identified and managed in hospitalised patients after acute stroke, and facilitators and challenges to optimising hydration. BACKGROUND: Optimal hydration post-stroke reduces the risk of neurological deterioration and other complications. Patients are at risk of dehydration in acute stroke, particularly those with dysphagia. DESIGN: A descriptive qualitative study reported following the COREQ guidelines. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews, utilising patient vignettes, were conducted in 2018 (Apr-Oct) with a purposive sample of 30 multidisciplinary staff members from two UK stroke units. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Content analysis identified common themes which were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Behaviour Change Wheel. RESULTS: The themes were mapped to twelve of the fourteen domains in the Theoretical Domains Framework. Participants believed that inadequate hydration management had potentially serious consequences, and described complex knowledge, skills and cognitive elements to effective hydration care. Participants felt that maintaining hydration was a multidisciplinary responsibility requiring good communication. Although the performance of initial dysphagia screening was reinforced by external audit, other areas of post-stroke hydration management were not; notably, there was no established method of assessing hydration. Barriers to maintaining good hydration included lack of staff, out-of-hours working patterns, low priority given to hydration, patients' comorbidities and complex post-stroke disabilities such as dysphagia, aphasia, inattention and hemiparesis. CONCLUSION: Findings highlighted the importance of assessing and maintaining hydration but identified barriers to, and variation in, clinical practice. To provide optimal care, barriers to the prevention and treatment of dehydration after stroke must be further understood and addressed. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Multidisciplinary teamwork is important in hydration care after stroke, but clarity is required about the specific contributions of each team member. Without this, hydration care becomes 'everybody's and nobody's job'.

Development of the stroke patient concerns inventory: A modified Delphi study.

OBJECTIVES: Stroke survivors often have unmet physical, psychological and/or social concerns. Patient Concerns Inventories (PCIs) have been developed for other health conditions to address concerns. Our objective was to develop a PCI for stroke care. METHODS: This was a development study, including Modified Delphi study design, with academic and healthcare professionals with stroke care expertise. In Stage 1, a draft Stroke PCI (Version 1a) was created through identifying patient-reported concerns post-stroke from three previous studies and through expert panel discussions using Nominal Group Technique. In Stage 2, Version 1a was sent to 92 academic and healthcare professionals with stroke care expertise. Participants ranked their top 20 Stroke PCI items in order of importance and provided feedback. Rankings were converted into scores, and, with the feedback, used to amend the Stroke PCI. Two further rounds of feedback followed until consensus was reached between participants. A final draft of the Stroke PCI was created. RESULTS: In stage 1, 64 potential Stroke PCI items were generated. In Stage 2, 38 participants (41.3%) responded to the request to rank Stroke PCI items. The three highest ranked items were 'Risk of another stroke', 'Walking', 'Recovery'. After three rounds of feedback and amendments, the final draft of the Stroke PCI consisted of 53 items. CONCLUSIONS: A Stroke PCI has been developed using patient-reported concerns in previous studies and input from academic and healthcare professionals. Future work will involve gathering further feedback on the tool and exploring its acceptability and usability in a pilot study.

Assessing fidelity to treatment delivery in the ICONS (Identifying Continence OptioNs after Stroke) cluster randomised feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of strategies to monitor and enhance treatment fidelity is of paramount importance in trials of complex interventions. A recent framework published by the National Institutes of Health Behavior Change Consortium recommends addressing five areas of treatment fidelity, one of which is delivery of treatment. This study aimed to explore fidelity to treatment delivery of the ICONS intervention (a systematic voiding programme [SVP]). This included exploring the feasibility of a method to assess fidelity to treatment delivery and collecting preliminary evidence of the level of fidelity to SVP delivery in order to inform strategies for improving fidelity in a future trial. METHODS: Delivery of treatment was recorded by nurses through completion of daily clinical logs, which included: a voiding interval, proposed voiding times and actual voiding times. The a priori method for assessment of fidelity - comparing actual voiding times with proposed voiding times - was trialled on a small amount of data. Due to errors in documentation of the voiding intervals and proposed voiding times it was not possible to assess fidelity directly as planned. A new method was devised, which included identification of 'key quality indicators'. RESULTS: This new approach to assessing fidelity used key quality indicators based upon presence of the data needed to make the comparison between proposed and actual voiding times. The proportion of clinical logs with correct documentation of voiding intervals and proposed voiding times was less than 40 %. For clinical logs with correct documentation, an actual voiding time within 30 min of the proposed voiding time was identified on approximately 55 % of occasions. CONCLUSIONS: Lessons learnt from this study have implications for the future ICONS definitive trial and for other trials of complex interventions. Implementation of a complex intervention may often deviate from what is intended. While careful consideration should be given to the best method of fidelity assessment, an iterative approach allowing flexibility to adapt pre-planned methods is recommended within feasibility trials. As fidelity to treatment delivery in the ICONS feasibility trial appeared to be relatively low, more attention to implementation strategies will be required in the definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Identifier: ISRCTN08609907 ; date registered: 07/07/2010.

Implementation-The Missing Link in the Research Translation Pipeline: Is It Any Wonder No One Ever Implements Evidence-Based Practice?

Despite the exponential growth in the evidence base for stroke rehabilitation, there is still a paucity of knowledge about how to consistently and sustainably deliver evidence-based stroke rehabilitation therapies in clinical practice. This means that people with stroke will not consistently benefit from research breakthroughs, simply because clinicians do not always have the skills, authority, knowledge or resources to be able to translate the findings from a research trial and apply these in clinical practice. This "point of view" article by an interdisciplinary, international team illustrates the lack of available evidence to guide the translation of evidence to practice in rehabilitation, by presenting a comprehensive and systematic content analysis of articles that were published in 2016 in leading clinical stroke rehabilitation journals commonly read by clinicians. Our review confirms that only a small fraction (2.5%) of published stroke rehabilitation research in these journals evaluate the implementation of evidence-based interventions into health care practice. We argue that in order for stroke rehabilitation research to contribute to enhanced health and well-being of people with stroke, journals, funders, policy makers, researchers, clinicians, and professional associations alike need to actively support and promote (through funding, conducting, or disseminating) implementation and evaluation research.