Characteristics and Outcomes of a Community Upper Limb Rehabilitation Group for Adult Stroke Survivors in Australia: A Pre-Post Cohort Study.

This study investigated outcomes of a community-based upper limb rehabilitation group for adult stroke survivors in metropolitan Australia. Pre-post data were extracted from medical records. Participants (n = 27) were predominantly men (n = 22, 81%); mean age 61 years (SD 17) and median time 109 days post stroke. Participants improved on upper limb outcomes, with statistically significant changes on several of the items on the Motor Assessment Scale (item seven mean improvement 0.93 (95% CI 0.48-2.19), p = .016; item eight mean improvement 1.4 (95% CI 0.38-2.42), p = .016) and grip strength (mean improvement 4.5 kg/9 pounds, 14.73 ounces (95% CI 1.5-7.6), p = .006). These results guide occupational therapists implementing community-based upper limb rehabilitation groups.

Effectiveness of health consumer representative involvement in implementation of interventions to change health professional behaviour.

BACKGROUND: The adoption of research evidence to improve client outcomes may be enhanced using the principles of implementation science. This systematic review aimed to understand the effect of involving consumers to change health professional behaviours and practices. The barriers and enablers to consumer engagement will also be examined. METHODS: We searched Medline, CINAHL, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PDQ-Evidence from 2004 to February 2019. Implementation studies involving consumers in at least one phase (development, intervention or facilitation) of an intervention that aimed to change health professional behaviour to align with evidence-based practice were included. Studies in the areas of paediatrics and primary care were excluded. Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion, and one author extracted data and conducted quality assessments with review of a second author. Knowledge translation interventions were categorized using the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care taxonomy. The primary outcome was measures of change in health professional behaviour. RESULTS: Sixteen articles met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of three studies found support for consumer involvement in changing healthcare professionals' behaviour (Hedges' g = 0.41, 95% CI [0.27, 0.57], P < 0.001). Most knowledge translation studies involved consumers during the development phase only (n = 12). Most studies (n = 9) included one type of knowledge translation intervention. Professional interventions (including education of health professionals, educational outreach, and audit and feedback) were described in 13 studies. CONCLUSIONS: Consumer involvement rarely moves beyond the design phase of knowledge translation research in healthcare settings. Further research of the barriers to and effect of increased consumer engagement across all stages of knowledge translation interventions is needed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019119179.

Implementation interventions to promote the uptake of evidence-based practices in stroke rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Rehabilitation based upon research evidence gives stroke survivors the best chance of recovery. There is substantial research to guide practice in stroke rehabilitation, yet uptake of evidence by healthcare professionals is typically slow and patients often do not receive evidence-based care. Implementation interventions are an important means to translate knowledge from research to practice and thus optimise the care and outcomes for stroke survivors. A synthesis of research evidence is required to guide the selection and use of implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of implementation interventions to promote the uptake of evidence-based practices (including clinical assessments and treatments recommended in evidence-based guidelines) in stroke rehabilitation and to assess the effects of implementation interventions tailored to address identified barriers to change compared to non-tailored interventions in stroke rehabilitation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other databases to 17 October 2019. We searched OpenGrey, performed citation tracking and reference checking for included studies and contacted authors of included studies to obtain further information and identify potentially relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individual and cluster randomised trials, non-randomised trials, interrupted time series studies and controlled before-after studies comparing an implementation intervention to no intervention or to another implementation approach in stroke rehabilitation. Participants were qualified healthcare professionals working in stroke rehabilitation and the patients they cared for. Studies were considered for inclusion regardless of date, language or publication status. Main outcomes were healthcare professional adherence to recommended treatment, patient adherence to recommended treatment, patient health status and well-being, healthcare professional intention and satisfaction, resource use outcomes and adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was any implementation intervention compared to no intervention. MAIN RESULTS: Nine cluster randomised trials (12,428 patient participants) and three ongoing trials met our selection criteria. Five trials (8865 participants) compared an implementation intervention to no intervention, three trials (3150 participants) compared one implementation intervention to another implementation intervention, and one three-arm trial (413 participants) compared two different implementation interventions to no intervention. Eight trials investigated multifaceted interventions; educational meetings and educational materials were the most common components. Six trials described tailoring the intervention content to identified barriers to change. Two trials focused on evidence-based stroke rehabilitation in the acute setting, four focused on the subacute inpatient setting and three trials focused on stroke rehabilitation in the community setting. We are uncertain if implementation interventions improve healthcare professional adherence to evidence-based practice in stroke rehabilitation compared with no intervention as the certainty of the evidence was very low (risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 2.64; 2 trials, 39 clusters, 1455 patient participants; I2 = 0%). Low-certainty evidence indicates implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation may lead to little or no difference in patient adherence to recommended treatment (number of recommended performed outdoor journeys adjusted mean difference (MD) 0.5, 95% CI -1.8 to 2.8; 1 trial, 21 clusters, 100 participants) and patient psychological well-being (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.02, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.50; 2 trials, 65 clusters, 1273 participants; I2 = 0%) compared with no intervention. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation probably lead to little or no difference in patient health-related quality of life (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.05; 2 trials, 65 clusters, 1242 participants; I2 = 0%) and activities of daily living (MD 0.29, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.73; 2 trials, 65 clusters, 1272 participants; I2 = 0%) compared with no intervention. No studies reported the effects of implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation on healthcare professional intention to change behaviour or satisfaction. Five studies reported economic outcomes, with one study reporting cost-effectiveness of the implementation intervention. However, this was assessed at high risk of bias. The other four studies did not demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of interventions. Tailoring interventions to identified barriers did not alter results. We are uncertain of the effect of one implementation intervention versus another given the limited very low-certainty evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain if implementation interventions improve healthcare professional adherence to evidence-based practice in stroke rehabilitation compared with no intervention as the certainty of the evidence is very low.

The effectiveness of somatosensory retraining for improving sensory function in the arm following stroke: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate if somatosensory retraining programmes assist people to improve somatosensory discrimination skills and arm functioning after stroke. DATA SOURCES: Nine databases were systematically searched: Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsychInfo, Embase, Amed, Web of Science, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, OT seeker, and Cochrane Library. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were included for review if they involved (1) adult participants who had somatosensory impairment in the arm after stroke, (2) a programme targeted at retraining somatosensation, (3) a primary measure of somatosensory discrimination skills in the arm, and (4) an intervention study design (e.g. randomized or non-randomized control designs). RESULTS: A total of 6779 articles were screened. Five group trials and five single case experimental designs were included ( N = 199 stroke survivors). Six studies focused exclusively on retraining somatosensation and four studies focused on somatosensation and motor retraining. Standardized somatosensory measures were typically used for tactile, proprioception, and haptic object recognition modalities. Sensory intervention effect sizes ranged from 0.3 to 2.2, with an average effect size of 0.85 across somatosensory modalities. A majority of effect sizes for proprioception and tactile somatosensory domains were greater than 0.5, and all but one of the intervention effect sizes were larger than the control effect sizes, at least as point estimates. Six studies measured motor and/or functional arm outcomes ( n = 89 participants), with narrative analysis suggesting a trend towards improvement in arm use after somatosensory retraining. CONCLUSION: Somatosensory retraining may assist people to regain somatosensory discrimination skills in the arm after stroke.

Changing practice in the assessment and treatment of somatosensory loss in stroke survivors: protocol for a knowledge translation study.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of somatosensory loss in the upper limb after stroke has been historically overshadowed by therapy focused on motor recovery. A double-blind randomized controlled trial has demonstrated the effectiveness of SENSe (Study of the Effectiveness of Neurorehabilitation on Sensation) therapy to retrain somatosensory discrimination after stroke. Given the acknowledged prevalence of upper limb sensory loss after stroke and the evidence-practice gap that exists in this area, effort is required to translate the published research to clinical practice. The aim of this study is to determine whether evidence-based knowledge translation strategies change the practice of occupational therapists and physiotherapists in the assessment and treatment of sensory loss of the upper limb after stroke to improve patient outcomes. METHOD/DESIGN: A pragmatic, before-after study design involving eight (n = 8) Australian health organizations, specifically sub-acute and community rehabilitation facilities. Stroke survivors (n = 144) and occupational therapists and physiotherapists (~10 per site, ~n = 80) will be involved in the study. Stroke survivors will be provided with SENSe therapy or usual care. Occupational therapists and physiotherapists will be provided with a multi-component approach to knowledge translation including i) tailoring of the implementation intervention to site-specific barriers and enablers, ii) interactive group training workshops, iii) establishing and fostering champion therapists and iv) provision of written educational materials and online resources. Outcome measures for occupational therapists and physiotherapists will be pre- and post-implementation questionnaires and audits of medical records. The primary outcome for stroke survivors will be change in upper limb somatosensory function, measured using a standardized composite measure. DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence and a template for knowledge translation in clinical, organizational and policy contexts in stroke rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) retrospective registration ACTRN12615000933550 .

Somatosensory assessment and treatment after stroke: An evidence-practice gap.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Loss of body sensations is common after stroke, impacting negatively on recovery and performance of activities of daily living. Despite advances in the evidence for the assessment and treatment of somatosensory impairment post-stroke, the translation from research into clinical practice has been slow. The aim of this study was to determine current clinical practice of occupational therapists and physiotherapists in the assessment and treatment of somatosensory impairment post-stroke. METHODS: A cross-sectional, self-administered online survey of occupational therapists and physiotherapists currently working with stroke clients in Australian health organisations, identified through an audit of stroke rehabilitation services and a professional member association. RESULTS: 172 clinicians, 62.8% occupational therapists and 37.2% physiotherapists currently working with stroke clients completed the survey. Most respondents (93.0%) indicated routinely assessing for sensory loss in stroke clients. The most commonly used measures were light touch and proprioception, with the majority (70.4%) not using standardised measures. Most respondents (97.7%) reported providing treatment to address sensory impairment, with compensatory strategies and sensory re-education the two most frequently reported. Evidence-based treatment choices were not common and therapists frequently relied on colleagues' opinions and previous experience to inform practice. Therapists commonly experienced barriers to implementing evidence-based sensory rehabilitation, including time constraints, large caseloads and lack of access to evidence-based somatosensory assessment and treatment resources. CONCLUSIONS: Most therapists perceived somatosensory assessment and treatment as important. However, frequently utilised methods lack a sound theoretical or empirical basis. Despite published evidence regarding somatosensory assessment and treatment, an evidence-practice gap exists.

A Network of Sites and Upskilled Therapists to Deliver Best-Practice Stroke Rehabilitation of the Arm: Protocol for a Knowledge Translation Study.

Implementation of evidence-informed rehabilitation of the upper limb is variable, and outcomes for stroke survivors are often suboptimal. We established a national partnership of clinicians, survivors of stroke, researchers, healthcare organizations, and policy makers to facilitate change. The objectives of this study are to increase access to best-evidence rehabilitation of the upper limb and improve outcomes for stroke survivors. This prospective pragmatic, knowledge translation study involves four new specialist therapy centers to deliver best-evidence upper-limb sensory rehabilitation (known as SENSe therapy) for survivors of stroke in the community. A knowledge-transfer intervention will be used to upskill therapists and guide implementation. Specialist centers will deliver SENSe therapy, an effective and recommended therapy, to stroke survivors in the community. Outcomes include number of successful deliveries of SENSe therapy by credentialled therapists; improved somatosensory function for stroke survivors; improved performance in self-selected activities, arm use, and quality of life; treatment fidelity and confidence to deliver therapy; and for future implementation, expert therapist effect and cost-effectiveness. In summary, we will determine the effect of a national partnership to increase access to evidence-based upper-limb sensory rehabilitation following stroke. If effective, this knowledge-transfer intervention could be used to optimize the delivery of other complex, evidence-based rehabilitation interventions.

What is "usual care" in the rehabilitation of upper limb sensory loss after stroke? Results from a national audit and knowledge translation study.

PURPOSE: To characterise the assessments and treatments that comprise "usual care" for stroke patients with somatosensory loss, and whether usual care has changed over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Comparison of cross-sectional, observational data from (1) Stroke Foundation National Audit of Acute (2007-2019) and Rehabilitation (2010-2018) Stroke Services and (2) the SENSe Implement multi-site knowledge translation study with occupational therapists and physiotherapists (n = 115). Descriptive statistics, random effects logistic regression, and content analysis were used. RESULTS: Acute hospitals (n = 172) contributed 24 996 cases across audits from 2007 to 2019 (median patient age 76 years, 54% male). Rehabilitation services (n = 134) contributed organisational survey data from 2010 to 2014, with 7165 cases (median 76 years, 55% male) across 2016-2018 clinical audits (n = 127 services). Somatoensory assessment protocol use increased from 53% (2007) to 86% (2019) (odds ratio 11.4, 95% CI 5.0-25.6). Reported use of sensory-specific retraining remained stable over time (90-93%). Therapist practice reports for n = 86 patients with somatosensory loss revealed 16% did not receive somatosensory rehabilitation. The most common treatment approaches were sensory rehabilitation using everyday activities (69%), sensory re-education (68%), and compensatory strategies (64%). CONCLUSION: Sensory assessment protocol use has increased over time while sensory-specific training has remained stable. Sensory rehabilitation in the context of everyday activities is a common treatment approach. Clinical trial registration number: ACTRN12615000933550IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONOnly a small proportion of upper limb assessments conducted with stroke patients focus specifically on sensation; increased use of standardised upper limb assessments for sensory loss is needed.Stroke patients assessed as having upper limb sensory loss frequently do not receive treatment for their deficits.Therapists typically use everyday activities to treat upper limb sensory loss and may require upskilling in sensory-specific retraining to benefit patients.

Factors influencing allied health professionals' implementation of upper limb sensory rehabilitation for stroke survivors: a qualitative study to inform knowledge translation.

OBJECTIVES: Somatosensory loss is common after stroke with one-in-two individuals affected. Although clinical practice guidelines recommend providing somatosensory rehabilitation, this impairment often remains unassessed and untreated. To address the gap between guideline recommendations and clinical practice, this study sought to understand the factors influencing delivery of evidence-based upper limb sensory rehabilitation after stroke. DESIGN: Qualitative study involving focus groups and interviews. Data analysis used an inductive approach (thematic analysis) and deductive analysis using implementation theory (the Theoretical Domains Framework and Normalisation Process Theory). SETTING: Eight healthcare organisations in metropolitan and regional areas of Victoria and New South Wales, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-seven rehabilitation therapists (79% occupational therapists and 21% physiotherapists) were purposively sampled and participated in a knowledge translation study with staggered recruitment from 2014 to 2018. RESULTS: Three types of factors influenced therapists' delivery of upper limb somatosensory rehabilitation: individual ('The uncertain, unskilled therapist'), patient ('Patient understanding and priorities') and organisational ('System pressures and resources'). Deductive analysis using implementation theory identified key determinants of practice change, such as opportunities to consolidate new skills, the anticipated benefits of upskilling as a therapy team and the work anticipated by therapists to incorporate a new somatosensory rehabilitation approach. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational therapists and physiotherapists hold valuable insights towards practice change in somatosensory rehabilitation from the 'frontline'. Therapists experience barriers to change including a lack of knowledge and skills, lack of resources and organisational pressures. Facilitators for change were identified, including social support and therapists' perceived legitimacy in using new somatosensory rehabilitation approaches. Results will inform the design of a tailored implementation strategy to increase the use of evidence-based somatosensory rehabilitation in Australia. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12615000933550).