Learning together for better health using an evidence-based Learning Health System framework: a case study in stroke.

BACKGROUND: In the context of expanding digital health tools, the health system is ready for Learning Health System (LHS) models. These models, with proper governance and stakeholder engagement, enable the integration of digital infrastructure to provide feedback to all relevant parties including clinicians and consumers on performance against best practice standards, as well as fostering innovation and aligning healthcare with patient needs. The LHS literature primarily includes opinion or consensus-based frameworks and lacks validation or evidence of benefit. Our aim was to outline a rigorously codesigned, evidence-based LHS framework and present a national case study of an LHS-aligned national stroke program that has delivered clinical benefit. MAIN TEXT: Current core components of a LHS involve capturing evidence from communities and stakeholders (quadrant 1), integrating evidence from research findings (quadrant 2), leveraging evidence from data and practice (quadrant 3), and generating evidence from implementation (quadrant 4) for iterative system-level improvement. The Australian Stroke program was selected as the case study as it provides an exemplar of how an iterative LHS works in practice at a national level encompassing and integrating evidence from all four LHS quadrants. Using this case study, we demonstrate how to apply evidence-based processes to healthcare improvement and embed real-world research for optimising healthcare improvement. We emphasize the transition from research as an endpoint, to research as an enabler and a solution for impact in healthcare improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The Australian Stroke program has nationally improved stroke care since 2007, showcasing the value of integrated LHS-aligned approaches for tangible impact on outcomes. This LHS case study is a practical example for other health conditions and settings to follow suit.

How registry data are used to inform activities for stroke care quality improvement across 55 countries: A cross-sectional survey of Registry of Stroke Care Quality (RES-Q) hospitals.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Registry of Stroke Care Quality (RES-Q) is a worldwide quality improvement data platform that captures performance and quality measures, enabling standardized comparisons of hospital care. The aim of this study was to determine if, and how, RES-Q data are used to influence stroke quality improvement and identify the support and educational needs of clinicians using RES-Q data to improve stroke care. METHODS: A cross-sectional self-administered online survey was administered (October 2021-February 2022). Participants were RES-Q hospital local coordinators responsible for stroke data collection. Descriptive statistics are presented. RESULTS: Surveys were sent to 1463 hospitals in 74 countries; responses were received from 358 hospitals in 55 countries (response rate 25%). RES-Q data were used "always" or "often" to: develop quality improvement initiatives (n = 213, 60%); track stroke care quality over time (n = 207, 58%); improve local practice (n = 191, 53%); and benchmark against evidence-based policies, procedures and/or guidelines to identify practice gaps (n = 179, 50%). Formal training in the use of RES-Q tools and data were the most frequent support needs identified by respondents (n = 165, 46%). Over half "strongly agreed" or "agreed" that to support clinical practice change, education is needed on: (i) using data to identify evidence-practice gaps (n = 259, 72%) and change clinical practice (n = 263, 74%), and (ii) quality improvement science and methods (n = 255, 71%). CONCLUSION: RES-Q data are used for monitoring stroke care performance. However, to facilitate their optimal use, effective quality improvement methods are needed. Educating staff in quality improvement science may develop competency and improve use of data in practice.

The Quality in Acute Stroke Care (QASC) global scale-up using a cascading facilitation framework: a qualitative process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Variation in hospital stroke care is problematic. The Quality in Acute Stroke (QASC) Australia trial demonstrated reductions in death and disability through supported implementation of nurse-led, evidence-based protocols to manage fever, hyperglycaemia (sugar) and swallowing (FeSS Protocols) following stroke. Subsequently, a pre-test/post-test study was conducted in acute stroke wards in 64 hospitals in 17 European countries to evaluate upscale of the FeSS Protocols. Implementation across countries was underpinned by a cascading facilitation framework of multi-stakeholder support involving academic partners and a not-for-profit health organisation, the Angels Initiative (the industry partner), that operates to promote evidence-based treatments in stroke centres. .We report here an a priori qualitative process evaluation undertaken to identify factors that influenced international implementation of the FeSS Protocols using a cascading facilitation framework. METHODS: The sampling frame for interviews was: (1) Executives/Steering Committee members, consisting of academics, the Angels Initiative and senior project team, (2) Angel Team leaders (managers of Angel Consultants), (3) Angel Consultants (responsible for assisting facilitation of FeSS Protocols into multiple hospitals) and (4) Country Co-ordinators (senior stroke nurses with country and hospital-level responsibilities for facilitating the introduction of the FeSS Protocols). A semi-structured interview elicited participant views on the factorsthat influenced engagement of stakeholders with the project and preparation for and implementation of the FeSS Protocol upscale. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed inductively within NVivo. RESULTS: Individual (n = 13) and three group interviews (3 participants in each group) were undertaken. Three main themes with sub-themes were identified that represented key factors influencing upscale: (1) readiness for change (sub-themes: negotiating expectations; intervention feasible and acceptable; shared goal of evidence-based stroke management); (2) roles and relationships (sub-themes: defining and establishing roles; harnessing nurse champions) and (3) managing multiple changes (sub-themes: accommodating and responding to variation; more than clinical change; multi-layered communication framework). CONCLUSION: A cascading facilitation model involving a partnership between evidence producers (academic partners), knowledge brokers (industry partner, Angels Initiative) and evidence adopters (stroke clinicians) overcame multiple challenges involved in international evidence translation. Capacity to manage, negotiate and adapt to multi-level changes and strategic engagement of different stakeholders supported adoption of nurse-initiated stroke protocols within Europe. This model has promise for other large-scale evidence translation programs.

Is it possible to make 'living' guidelines? An evaluation of the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Keeping best practice guidelines up-to-date with rapidly emerging research evidence is challenging. 'Living guidelines' approaches enable continual incorporation of new research, assisting healthcare professionals to apply the latest evidence to their clinical practice. However, information about how living guidelines are developed, maintained and applied is limited. The Stroke Foundation in Australia was one of the first organisations to apply living guideline development methods for their Living Stroke Guidelines (LSGs), presenting a unique opportunity to evaluate the process and impact of this novel approach. METHODS: A mixed-methods study was conducted to understand the experience of LSGs developers and end-users. We used thematic analysis of one-on-one semi-structured interview and online survey data to determine the feasibility, acceptability, and facilitators and barriers of the LSGs. Website analytics data were also reviewed to understand usage. RESULTS: Overall, the living guidelines approach was both feasible and acceptable to developers and users. Facilitators to use included collaboration with multidisciplinary clinicians and stroke survivors or carers. Increased workload for developers, workload unpredictability, and limited information sharing, and interoperability of technological platforms were identified as barriers. Users indicated increased trust in the LSGs (69%), likelihood of following the LSGs (66%), and frequency of access (58%), compared with previous static versions. Web analytics data showed individual access by 16,517 users in 2016 rising to 53,154 users in 2020, a threefold increase. There was also a fourfold increase in unique LSG pageviews from 2016 to 2020. CONCLUSIONS: This study, the first evaluation of living guidelines, demonstrates that this approach to stroke guideline development is feasible and acceptable, that these approaches may add value to developers and users, and may increase guideline use. Future evaluations should be embedded along with guideline implementation to capture data prospectively.

Pre-implementation context and implementation approach for a nursing and midwifery clinician researcher career pathway: A qualitative study.

AIM: To describe the pre-implementation context and implementation approach, for a clinician researcher career pathway. BACKGROUND: Clinician researchers across all health disciplines are emerging to radically influence practice change and improve patient outcomes. Yet, to date, there are limited clinician researcher career pathways embedded in clinical practice for nurses and midwives. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive design was used. DATA SOURCES: Data were collected from four online focus groups and four interviews of health consumers, nursing and midwifery clinicians, and nursing unit managers (N = 20) between July 2022 and September 2023. RESULTS: Thematic and content analysis identified themes/categories relating to: Research in health professionals' roles and nursing and midwifery, and Research activity and culture (context); with implementation approaches within coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring (Normalization Process Theory). CONCLUSIONS: The Pathway was perceived to meet organizational objectives with the potential to create significant cultural change in nursing and midwifery. Backfilling of protected research time was essential. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: The Pathway was seen as an instrument to empower staff, foster staff retention and extend research opportunities to every nurse and midwife, while improving patient experiences and outcomes. IMPACT: Clinicians, consumers and managers fully supported the implementation of clinician researchers with this Pathway. The Pathway could engage all clinicians in evidence-based practice with a clinician researcher leader, effect practice change with colleagues and enhance patient outcomes. REPORTING METHOD: This study adheres to relevant EQUATOR guidelines using the COREG checklist. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Health consumers involved in this research as participants, did not contribute to the design or conduct of the study, analysis or interpretation of the data, or in the preparation of the manuscript.

Addressing Disparities in Acute Stroke Management and Prognosis.

There are now abundant data demonstrating disparities in acute stroke management and prognosis; however, interventions to reduce these disparities remain limited. This special report aims to provide a critical review of the current landscape of disparities in acute stroke care and highlight opportunities to use implementation science to reduce disparities throughout the early care continuum. In the prehospital setting, stroke symptom recognition campaigns that have been successful in reducing prehospital delays used a multilevel approach to education, including mass media, culturally tailored community education, and professional education. The mobile stroke unit is an organizational intervention that has the potential to provide more equitable access to timely thrombolysis and thrombectomy treatments. In the hospital setting, interventions to address implicit biases among health care providers in acute stroke care decision-making are urgently needed as part of a multifaceted approach to advance stroke equity. Implementing stroke systems of care interventions, such as evidence-based stroke care protocols at designated stroke centers, can have a broader public health impact and may help reduce geographic, racial, and ethnic disparities in stroke care, although further research is needed. The long-term impact of disparities in acute stroke care cannot be underestimated. The consistent trend of longer time to treatment for Black and Hispanic people experiencing stroke has direct implications on long-term disability and independence after stroke. A learning health system model may help expedite the translation of evidence-based interventions into clinical practice to reduce disparities in stroke care.

Transforming nursing assessment in acute hospitals: A cluster randomised controlled trial of an evidence-based nursing core assessment (the ENCORE trial).

BACKGROUND: Patient safety is threatened when early signs of clinical deterioration are missed or not acted upon. This research began as a clinical-academic partnership established around a shared concern of nursing physical assessment practices on general wards and delayed recognition of clinical deterioration. The outcome was the development of a complex intervention facilitated at the ward level for proactive nursing surveillance. METHODS: The evidence-based nursing core assessment (ENCORE) trial was a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial. We hypothesised that ward intervention would reduce the incidence of patient rescue events (medical emergency team activations) and serious adverse events. We randomised 29 general wards in a 1:2 allocation, across 5 Australian hospitals to intervention (n = 10) and usual care wards (n = 19). Skilled facilitation over 12 months enabled practitioner-led, ward-level practice change for proactive nursing surveillance. The primary outcome was the rate of medical emergency team activations and secondary outcomes were unplanned intensive care unit admissions, on-ward resuscitations, and unexpected deaths. Outcomes were prospectively collected for 6 months following the initial 6 months of implementation. Analysis was at the patient level using generalised linear mixed models to account for clustering by ward. RESULTS: We analysed 29,385 patient admissions to intervention (n = 11,792) and control (n = 17,593) wards. Adjusted models for overall effects suggested the intervention increased the rate of medical emergency team activations (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.314; 95 % confidence interval 0.975, 1.773), although the confidence interval was compatible with a marginal decrease to a substantial increase in rate. Confidence intervals for secondary outcomes included a range of plausible effects from benefit to harm. However, considerable heterogeneity was observed in intervention effects by patient comorbidity. Among patients with few comorbid conditions in the intervention arm there was a lower medical emergency team activation rate and decreased odds of unexpected death. Among patients with multimorbidity in the intervention arm there were higher rates of medical emergency team activation and intensive care unit admissions. CONCLUSION: Trial outcomes have refined our assumptions about the impact of the ENCORE intervention. The intervention appears to have protective effects for patients with low complexity where frontline teams can respond locally. It also appears to have redistributed medical emergency team activations and unplanned intensive care unit admissions, mobilising higher rates of rescue for patients with multimorbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12618001903279 (Date of registration: 22/11/2018; First participant recruited: 01/02/2019).

Statistical analysis plan for the Recovery-focused Community support to Avoid readmissions and improve Participation after Stroke randomised controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Unplanned hospital presentations may occur post-stroke due to inadequate preparation for transitioning from hospital to home. The Recovery-focused Community support to Avoid readmissions and improve Participation after Stroke (ReCAPS) trial was designed to test the effectiveness of receiving a 12-week, self-management intervention, comprising personalised goal setting with a clinician and aligned educational/motivational electronic messages. Primary outcome is as follows: self-reported unplanned hospital presentations (emergency department/admission) within 90-day post-randomisation. We present the statistical analysis plan for this trial. METHODS/DESIGN: Participants are randomised 1:1 in variable block sizes, with stratification balancing by age and level of baseline disability. The sample size was 890 participants, calculated to detect a 10% absolute reduction in the proportion of participants reporting unplanned hospital presentations/admissions, with 80% power and 5% significance level (two sided). Recruitment will end in December 2023 when funding is expended, and the sample size achieved will be used. Logistic regression, adjusted for the stratification variables, will be used to determine the effectiveness of the intervention on the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes will be evaluated using appropriate regression models. The primary outcome analysis will be based on intention to treat. A p-value ≤ 0.05 will indicate statistical significance. An independent Data Safety and Monitoring Committee has routinely reviewed the progress and safety of the trial. CONCLUSIONS: This statistical analysis plan ensures transparency in reporting the trial outcomes. ReCAPS trial will provide novel evidence on the effectiveness of a digital health support package post-stroke. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ACTRN12618001468213. Registered on August 31, 2018. SAP version 1.13 (October 12 2023) Protocol version 1.12 (October 12, 2022) SAP revisions Nil.

Protocol for a feasibility registry-based randomised controlled trial investigating a tailored follow-up service for stroke (A-LISTS).

BACKGROUND: Stroke affects long-term physical and cognitive function; many survivors report unmet health needs, such as pain or depression. A hospital-led follow-up service designed to address ongoing health problems may avoid unplanned readmissions and improve quality of life. METHODS: This paper outlines the protocol for a registry-based, randomised controlled trial with allocation concealment of participants and outcome assessors. Based on an intention-to-treat analysis, we will evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, potential effectiveness and cost implications of a new tailored, codesigned, hospital-led follow-up service for people within 6-12 months of stroke. Participants (n = 100) from the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry who report extreme health problems on the EuroQol EQ-5D-3L survey between 90 and 180 days after stroke will be randomly assigned (1:1) to intervention (follow-up service) or control (usual care) groups. All participants will be independently assessed at baseline and 12-14-week post-randomisation. Primary outcomes for feasibility are the proportion of participants completing the trial and for intervention participants the proportion that received follow-up services. Acceptability is satisfaction of clinicians and participants involved in the intervention. Secondary outcomes include effectiveness: change in extreme health problems (EQ-5D-3L), unmet needs (Longer-term Unmet Needs questionnaire), unplanned presentations and hospital readmission, functional independence (modified Rankin Scale) and cost implications estimated from self-reported health service utilisation and productivity (e.g. workforce participation). To inform future research or implementation, the design contains a process evaluation including clinical protocol fidelity and an economic evaluation. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will provide improved knowledge of service design and implementation barriers and facilitators and associated costs and resource implications to inform a future fully powered effectiveness trial of the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12622001015730pr. TRIAL SPONSOR: Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, 245 Burgundy Street, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, PH: +61 3 9035 7032.

Improving health system responses when patients are harmed: a protocol for a multistage mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: At least 10% of hospital admissions in high-income countries, including Australia, are associated with patient safety incidents, which contribute to patient harm ('adverse events'). When a patient is seriously harmed, an investigation or review is undertaken to reduce the risk of further incidents occurring. Despite 20 years of investigations into adverse events in healthcare, few evaluations provide evidence of their quality and effectiveness in reducing preventable harm.This study aims to develop consistent, informed and robust best practice guidance, at state and national levels, that will improve the response, learning and health system improvements arising from adverse events. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The setting will be healthcare organisations in Australian public health systems in the states of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. We will apply a multistage mixed-methods research design with evaluation and in-situ feasibility testing. This will include literature reviews (stage 1), an assessment of the quality of 300 adverse event investigation reports from participating hospitals (stage 2), and a policy/procedure document review from participating hospitals (stage 3) as well as focus groups and interviews on perspectives and experiences of investigations with healthcare staff and consumers (stage 4). After triangulating results from stages 1-4, we will then codesign tools and guidance for the conduct of investigations with staff and consumers (stage 5) and conduct feasibility testing on the guidance (stage 6). Participants will include healthcare safety systems policymakers and staff (n=120-255) who commission, undertake or review investigations and consumers (n=20-32) who have been impacted by adverse events. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been granted by the Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/ETH02007 and 2023/ETH02341).The research findings will be incorporated into best practice guidance, published in international and national journals and disseminated through conferences.