A protocol to evaluate the impact of embedding Public and Patient Involvement in a structured PhD program for stroke care.

Background: Embedding Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) in postgraduate research has been recognized as an important component of post-graduate training, providing research scholars with an awareness and a skillset in an area which prepares them for future roles as healthcare researchers. Improving Pathways for Acute STroke And Rehabilitation (iPASTAR) is a structured PhD training program [Collaborative Doctoral Award (CDA)] which aims to design a person-centered stroke pathway throughout the trajectory of stroke care, to optimize post-stroke health and wellbeing. PPI is embedded at all stages. Purpose: The iPASTAR research programme was strongly informed by a round-table PPI consultation process with individuals who experienced stroke and who provided broad representation across ages, gender, geographical locations (urban and rural) and the PhD themed areas of acute care, early supported discharge and lifestyle-based interventions after stroke. Four PhD scholars taking part in the CDA-iPASTAR now work collaboratively with four stroke champions, supported by a wider PPI advisory panel. Methods: This study will evaluate the process and impact of embedding PPI during a PhD program. We will conduct a longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation, conducting focus groups at 24, 36, and 48 months to explore the experiences of the key stakeholders involved. The participants will include PhD scholars, PPI partners (PPI Advisory Group and PPI Champions), PhD supervisors and a PPI manager. An independent researcher will conduct the evaluation. We will include focus groups, individual interviews and participant reflections. Qualitative data will be analyzed using thematic and content analysis, quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. Discussion: PPI and patient voice initiatives bring together researchers, family, and people with health care issues into meaningful dialogue and allow the development of a patient-voice learning network. Embedding PPI training within a PhD program can build meaningful capacity in PPI partnerships in stroke research.

The impact of telemedicine enabled pre-hospital triage in acute stroke - a protocol for a mixed methods systematic review.

Introduction: Increasing access to thrombolysis and thrombectomy through improved pathway organisation remains a health service challenge that requires contextualisation to the geographic, demographic and resourcing status of any regional stroke service. Pre-hospital delays or delays during inter-hospital transfers can result in patients being outside the window for one or both interventions. Pre-hospital triage using technology-enabled interdisciplinary communication networks may facilitate rapid individualized care decisions, permitting streamlined care pathways to hospital sites most appropriate to their clinical presentation and history in the first instance. Understanding the experience of those involved in efforts to improve or reorganise care may help to explain the impact observed. Objectives: 1. To review the impact of pre-hospital telemedicine enabled workflow intervention strategies on patient outcomes and on service process metrics in hyper-acute stroke care2. To examine how the experience of those involved in providing or receiving such interventions might identify key characteristics of effective interventions. Inclusion criteria: Quantitative, qualitative and primary mixed methods studies will be included. Quantitative studies will assess effectiveness of telemedicine-enabled interventions that facilitate pre-hospital acute stroke triage. Intervention effects on functional outcomes of patients, on intervention rates and on key time metrics in hyperacute stroke care will be assessed. Qualitative studies will explore the experiences of people involved in or impacted by these interventions. Methods and analysis: A convergent segregated mixed methods systematic review will synthesise and integrate primary qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. Database searches will include OVID (MEDLINE), EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Web of Science. Critical appraisal will include the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. Results of quantitative studies and findings of qualitative studies will be integrated and configured to explore and contextualize each single method synthesis. Systematic review registration: This protocol has been submitted for registration with PROSPERO.

Outcomes of Renal Transplantation in Patients With Bipolar Affective Disorder and Schizophrenia: A National Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar affective disorder (BPAD) have in the past been excluded from organ transplantation programs based on their psychiatric illness. However, there is little data on the outcomes of renal transplantation in these patients and little evidence to support such exclusion. METHODS: We reviewed the database of the Irish National Renal Transplant Programme and identified all patients with a history of BPAD or schizophrenia who had received a transplant over a 28-year period. Data were collected for the following outcomes: patient survival, graft survival, graft function, length of hospitalization for transplantation, and frequency of acute rejection episodes. The control group was the general transplant group, that is, all patients without these psychiatric disorders and who had received a renal transplant during the relevant time period. RESULTS: Between January 1, 1986, and December 31, 2013, 3000 renal transplants were performed at our center. Of the transplant recipients, 0.5% (n = 15) had a diagnosis of BPAD and 0.2% (n = 6) had schizophrenia. No significant differences were found between the BPAD or schizophrenia group and the general renal transplant group in relation to patient survival, graft survival, and graft function. In addition, length of hospital admission for transplantation and frequency of acute rejection episodes were comparable among the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although consideration of psychiatric comorbidity is an important part of pretransplant assessment and selection, patients should not be discriminated against based on a diagnosis of BPAD or schizophrenia as there is no evidence that this negatively affects transplant outcomes.