Evaluating remote facilitation intensity for multi-national translation of nurse-initiated stroke protocols (QASC Australasia): a protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Facilitated implementation of nurse-initiated protocols to manage fever, hyperglycaemia (sugar) and swallowing difficulties (FeSS Protocols) in 19 Australian stroke units resulted in reduced death and dependency for stroke patients. However, a significant gap remains in translating this evidence-based care bundle protocol into standard practice in Australia and New Zealand. Facilitation is a key component for increasing implementation. However, its contribution to evidence translation initiatives requires further investigation. We aim to evaluate two levels of intensity of external remote facilitation as part of a multifaceted intervention to improve FeSS Protocol uptake and quality of care for patients with stroke in Australian and New Zealand acute care hospitals. METHODS: A three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial with a process evaluation and economic evaluation. Australian and New Zealand hospitals with a stroke unit or service will be recruited and randomised in blocks of five to one of the three study arms-high- or low-intensity external remote facilitation or a no facilitation control group-in a 2:2:1 ratio. The multicomponent implementation strategy will incorporate implementation science frameworks (Theoretical Domains Framework, Capability, Opportunity, Motivation - Behaviour Model and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research) and include an online education package, audit and feedback reports, local clinical champions, barrier and enabler assessments, action plans, reminders and external remote facilitation. The primary outcome is implementation effectiveness using a composite measure comprising six monitoring and treatment elements of the FeSS Protocols. Secondary outcome measures are as follows: composite outcome of adherence to each of the combined monitoring and treatment elements for (i) fever (n=5); (ii) hyperglycaemia (n=6); and (iii) swallowing protocols (n=7); adherence to the individual elements that make up each of these protocols; comparison for composite outcomes between (i) metropolitan and rural/remote hospitals; and (ii) stroke units and stroke services. A process evaluation will examine contextual factors influencing intervention uptake. An economic evaluation will describe cost differences relative to each intervention and study outcomes. DISCUSSION: We will generate new evidence on the most effective facilitation intensity to support implementation of nurse-initiated stroke protocols nationwide, reducing geographical barriers for those in rural and remote areas. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12622000028707. Registered 14 January, 2022.

Behavioural determinants of COVID-19 vaccination acceptance among healthcare workers: a rapid review.

OBJECTIVES: Vaccinating healthcare workers (HCWs) against COVID-19 has been a public health priority since rollout began in late 2020. Promoting COVID-19 vaccination among HCWs would benefit from identifying modifiable behavioural determinants. We sought to identify and categorize studies looking at COVID-19 vaccination acceptance to identify modifiable factors to increase uptake in HCWs. STUDY DESIGN: Rapid evidence review. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane databases until May 2021 and conducted a grey literature search to identify cross-sectional, cohort, and qualitative studies. Key barriers to, and enablers of, vaccine acceptance were categorized using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), a comprehensive theoretical framework comprising 14 behavioural domains. RESULTS: From 19,591 records, 74 studies were included. Almost two-thirds of responding HCWs were willing to accept a COVID-19 vaccine (median = 64%, interquartile range = 50-78%). Twenty key barriers and enablers were identified and categorized into eight TDF domains. The most frequently identified barriers to COVID-19 vaccination were as follows: concerns about vaccine safety, efficacy, and speed of development (TDF domain: Beliefs about consequences); individuals in certain HCW roles (Social/professional role and identity); and mistrust in state/public health response to COVID-19 (Social influences). Routinely being vaccinated for seasonal influenza (Reinforcement), concerns about contracting COVID-19 (Beliefs about consequences) and working directly with COVID-19 patients (Social/professional role and identity) were key enablers of COVID-19 vaccination among HCWs. DISCUSSION: Our review identified eight (of a possible 14) behavioural determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among HCWs that, if targeted, could help design tailored vaccination messaging, policy, campaigns, and programs to support HCWs vaccination uptake.

Economic evaluations of audit and feedback interventions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of audit and feedback (A&F) interventions to improve compliance to healthcare guidelines is supported by randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs. However, there is currently a knowledge gap on their cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess whether A&F interventions targeting improvements in compliance to recommended care are economically favourable. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review including experimental, observational and simulation-based economic evaluation studies of A&F interventions targeting healthcare providers. Comparators were a 'do nothing' strategy, or any other intervention not involving A&F or involving a subset of A&F intervention components. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Econlit, EMBASE, Health Technology Assessment Database, MEDLINE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, ABI/INFORM, Web of Science, ProQuest and websites of healthcare quality associations to December 2021. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, incremental cost-utility ratios, incremental net benefit and incremental cost-benefit ratios. Pairs of reviewers independently selected eligible studies and extracted relevant data. Reporting quality was evaluated using CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards). Results were synthesised using permutation matrices for all studies and predefined subgroups. RESULTS: Of 13 221 unique citations, 35 studies met our inclusion criteria. The A&F intervention was dominant (ie, at least as effective with lower cost) in 7 studies, potentially cost-effective in 26 and was dominated (ie, the same or less effectiveness and higher costs) in 2 studies. A&F interventions were more likely to be economically favourable in studies based on health outcomes rather than compliance to recommended practice, considering medical costs in addition to intervention costs, published since 2010, and with high reporting quality. DISCUSSION: Results suggest that A&F interventions may have a high potential to be cost-effective. However, as is common in systematic reviews of economic evaluations, publication bias could have led to an overestimation of their economic value.

Strengthening the science of addressing antimicrobial resistance: a framework for planning, conducting and disseminating antimicrobial resistance intervention research.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has the potential to threaten tens of millions of lives and poses major global economic and development challenges. As the AMR threat grows, it is increasingly important to strengthen the scientific evidence base on AMR policy interventions, to learn from existing policies and programmes, and to integrate scientific evidence into the global AMR response.While rigorous evaluations of AMR policy interventions are the ideal, they are far from the current reality. To strengthen this evidence base, we describe a framework for planning, conducting and disseminating research on AMR policy interventions. The framework identifies challenges in AMR research, areas for enhanced coordination and cooperation with decision-makers, and best practices in the design of impact evaluations for AMR policies.This framework offers a path forward, enabling increased local and global cooperation, and overcoming common limitations in existing research on AMR policy interventions.

Study reporting quality among interventions to reduce antibiotic use is a barrier to evidence-informed policymaking on antimicrobial resistance: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Countries are currently seeking evidence-informed policy options to address antimicrobial resistance (AMR). While rigorous evaluations of AMR interventions are the ideal, they are far from the current reality. Additionally, poor reporting and documentation of AMR interventions impede efforts to use evidence to inform future evaluations and policy interventions. OBJECTIVES: To critically evaluate reporting quality gaps in AMR intervention research. METHODS: To evaluate the reporting quality of studies, we conducted a descriptive synthesis and comparative analysis of studies that were included in a recent systematic review of government policy interventions aiming to reduce human antimicrobial use. Reporting quality was assessed using the SQUIRE 2.0 checklist of 18 items for reporting system-level interventions to improve healthcare. Two reviewers independently applied the checklist to 66 studies identified in the systematic review. RESULTS: None of the studies included complete information on all 18 SQUIRE items (median score = 10, IQR = 8-11). Reporting quality varied across SQUIRE items, with 3% to 100% of studies reporting the recommended information for each SQUIRE item. Only 20% of studies reported the elements of the intervention in sufficient detail for replication and only 24% reported the mechanism through which the intervention was expected to work. CONCLUSIONS: Gaps in the reporting of impact evaluations pose challenges for interpreting and replicating study results. Failure to improve reporting practice of policy evaluations is likely to impede efforts to tackle the growing health, social and economic threats posed by AMR.

Exploring reasons for overuse of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in Canada.

Background: Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (cpm) in women with known unilateral breast cancer (bca) has been increasing despite the lack of supportive evidence. The purpose of the present study was to identify the determinants of cpm in women with unilateral bca. Methods: This qualitative descriptive study used semi-structured interviews informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. We interviewed 74 key informants (surgical oncologists, plastic surgeons, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, nurses, women with bca) across Canada. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis and an analysis for shared and discipline-specific beliefs. Results: In total, 58 factors influencing the use of cpm were identified: 26 factors shared by various health care professional groups, 15 discipline-specific factors (identified by a single health care professional group), and 17 factors shared by women with unilateral bca. Health care professionals identified more factors discouraging the use of cpm (n = 26) than encouraging its use (n = 15); women with bca identified more factors encouraging use of cpm (n = 12) than discouraging its use (n = 5). The factor most commonly identified by health care professionals that encouraged cpm was lack of awareness of existing evidence or guidelines for the appropriate use of cpm (n = 44, 75%). For women with bca, the factor most likely influencing their decision for cpm was wanting a better esthetic outcome (n = 14, 93%). Conclusions: Multiple factors discouraging and encouraging the use of cpm in unilateral bca were identified. Those factors identify potential individual, team, organization, and system targets for behaviour change interventions to reduce cpm.

Testing e-mail content to encourage physicians to access an audit and feedback tool: a factorial randomized experiment.

Background: In Ontario, an online audit and feedback tool that provides primary care physicians with detailed information about patients who are overdue for cancer screening is underused. In the present study, we aimed to examine the effect of messages operationalizing 3 behaviour change techniques on access to the audit and feedback tool and on cancer screening rates. Methods: During May-September 2017, a pragmatic 2×2×2 factorial experiment tested 3 behaviour change techniques: anticipated regret, material incentive, and problem-solving. Outcomes were assessed using routinely collected administrative data. A qualitative process evaluation explored how and why the e-mail messages did or did not support Screening Activity Report access. Results: Of 5449 primary care physicians randomly allocated to 1 of 8 e-mail messages, fewer than half opened the messages and fewer than 1 in 10 clicked through the messages. Messages with problem-solving content were associated with a 12.9% relative reduction in access to the tool (risk ratio: 0.871; 95% confidence interval: 0.791 to 0.958; p = 0.005), but a 0.3% increase in cervical cancer screening (rate ratio: 1.003; 95% confidence interval: 1.001 to 1.006; p = 0.003). If true, that association would represent 7568 more patients being screened. No other significant effects were observed. Conclusions: For audit and feedback to work, recipients must engage with the data; for e-mail messages to prompt activity, recipients must open and review the message content. This large factorial experiment demonstrated that small changes in the content of such e-mail messages might influence clinical behaviour. Future research should focus on strategies to make cancer screening more user-centred.

Reinvigorating stagnant science: implementation laboratories and a meta-laboratory to efficiently advance the science of audit and feedback.

Audit and feedback (A&F) is a commonly used quality improvement (QI) approach. A Cochrane review indicates that A&F is generally effective and leads to modest improvements in professional practice but with considerable variation in the observed effects. While we have some understanding of factors that enhance the effects of A&F, further research needs to explore when A&F is most likely to be effective and how to optimise it. To do this, we need to move away from two-arm trials of A&F compared with control in favour of head-to-head trials of different ways of providing A&F. This paper describes implementation laboratories involving collaborations between healthcare organisations providing A&F at scale, and researchers, to embed head-to-head trials into routine QI programmes. This can improve effectiveness while producing generalisable knowledge about how to optimise A&F. We also describe an international meta-laboratory that aims to maximise cross-laboratory learning and facilitate coordination of A&F research.

Prioritizing research areas for antibiotic stewardship programmes in hospitals: a behavioural perspective consensus paper.

SCOPE: Antibiotic stewardship programmes (ASPs) are necessary in hospitals to improve the judicious use of antibiotics. While ASPs require complex change of key behaviours on individual, team organization and policy levels, evidence from the behavioural sciences is underutilized in antibiotic stewardship studies across the world, including high-income countries (HICs). A consensus procedure was performed to propose research priority areas for optimizing effective implementation of ASPs in hospital settings using a behavioural perspective. METHODS: A workgroup for behavioural approaches to ASPs was convened in response to the fourth call for leading expert network proposals by the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance (JPIAMR). Eighteen clinical and academic specialists in antibiotic stewardship, implementation science and behaviour change from four HICs with publicly funded healthcare systems (e.g. Canada, Germany, Norway and the UK) met face-to-face to agree on broad research priority areas using a structured consensus method. Question addressed and recommendations: The consensus process assessing the ten identified research priority areas resulted in recommendations that need urgent scientific interest and funding to optimize effective implementation of ASPs for hospital inpatients in HICs with publicly funded healthcare systems. We suggest and detail behavioural science evidence-guided research efforts in the following areas: (a) comprehensively identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing ASPs and clinical recommendations intended to optimize antibiotic prescribing; (b) identifying actors ('who') and actions ('what needs to be done') of ASPs and clinical teams; (c) synthesizing available evidence to support future research and planning for ASPs; (d) specifying the activities in current ASPs with the purpose of defining a control group for comparison with new initiatives; (e) defining a balanced set of outcomes and measures to evaluate the effects of interventions focused on reducing unnecessary exposure to antibiotics; (f) conducting robust evaluations of ASPs with built-in process evaluations and fidelity assessments; (g) defining and designing ASPs; (h) establishing the evidence base for impact of ASPs on resistance; (i) investigating the role and impact of government and policy contexts on ASPs; and (j) understanding what matters to patients in ASPs in hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment, revisions and updates of our priority-setting exercise should be considered at intervals of 2 years. To propose research priority areas in low- and middle-income countries, the methodology reported here could be applied.

Barriers to and enablers of diabetic retinopathy screening attendance: a systematic review of published and grey literature.

AIMS: To identify and synthesize studies reporting modifiable barriers/enablers associated with retinopathy screening attendance in people with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes, and to identify those most likely to influence attendance. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and the 'grey literature' for quantitative and qualitative studies to February 2017. Data (i.e. participant quotations, interpretive summaries, survey results) reporting barriers/enablers were extracted and deductively coded into domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework; with domains representing categories of theoretical barriers/enablers proposed to mediate behaviour change. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted within domains to describe the role each domain plays in facilitating or hindering screening attendance. Domains that were more frequently coded and for which more themes were generated were judged more likely to influence attendance. RESULTS: Sixty-nine primary studies were included. We identified six theoretical domains ['environmental context and resources' (75% of included studies), 'social influences' (51%), 'knowledge' (51%), 'memory, attention, decision processes' (50%), 'beliefs about consequences' (38%) and 'emotions' (33%)] as the key mediators of diabetic retinopathy screening attendance. Examples of barriers populating these domains included inaccurate diabetic registers and confusion between routine eye care and retinopathy screening. Recommendations by healthcare professionals and community-level media coverage acted as enablers. CONCLUSIONS: Across a variety of contexts, we found common barriers to and enablers of retinopathy screening that could be targeted in interventions aiming to increase screening attendance.

Reporting and design elements of audit and feedback interventions: a secondary review.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) is a frequently used intervention aiming to support implementation of research evidence into clinical practice with positive, yet variable, effects. Our understanding of effective A&F has been limited by poor reporting and intervention heterogeneity. Our objective was to describe the extent of these issues. METHODS: Using a secondary review of A&F interventions and a consensus-based process to identify modifiable A&F elements, we examined intervention descriptions in 140 trials of A&F to quantify reporting limitations and describe the interventions. RESULTS: We identified 17 modifiable A&F intervention elements; 14 were examined to quantify reporting limitations and all 17 were used to describe the interventions. Clear reporting of the elements ranged from 56% to 97% with a median of 89%. There was considerable variation in A&F interventions with 51% for individual providers only, 92% targeting behaviour change and 79% targeting processes of care, 64% performed by the provider group and 81% reporting aggregate patient data. CONCLUSIONS: Our process identified 17 A&F design elements, demonstrated gaps in reporting and helped understand the degree of variation in A&F interventions.

Development of training for medicines-oriented policymakers to apply evidence.

BACKGROUND: Health systems globally promote appropriate prescribing by healthcare providers and safe and effective medicine use by consumers. Rx for Change, a publicly available database, provides access to systematic reviews regarding best practices for prescribing and using medicines. Despite the value of the database for improving prescribing and medicine use, its use remains suboptimal. This study aimed to develop a training program for five medicine-focused organisations in Canada and Australia to facilitate the use and understanding of the Rx for Change database. METHODS: Four steps were undertaken: 1) key informant interviews were completed across all organisations to understand the knowledge user perspective; 2) a directed content analysis was completed of the interview transcripts and proposed training was developed; 3) a second round of feedback on the proposed training by knowledge users was gathered; and 4) feedback was integrated to develop the final training. RESULTS: Sixteen key informant interviews with knowledge users were conducted. Themes for training content included the scope of, navigation and strategies for using Rx for Change (generic content) and practical examples on incorporating evidence within their workplace context (tailored content). The final training consisted of an informational video, a 60-minute face-to-face workshop and two post-training reminders. CONCLUSIONS: A method of engaging knowledge users in the development of a training program to improve the use of an on-line database of systematic reviews was established and used to design training. Next steps include the delivery and evaluation of the training.

Protocol for the development of a CONSORT-equity guideline to improve reporting of health equity in randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Health equity concerns the absence of avoidable and unfair differences in health. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can provide evidence about the impact of an intervention on health equity for specific disadvantaged populations or in general populations; this is important for equity-focused decision-making. Previous work has identified a lack of adequate reporting guidelines for assessing health equity in RCTs. The objective of this study is to develop guidelines to improve the reporting of health equity considerations in RCTs, as an extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). METHODS/DESIGN: A six-phase study using integrated knowledge translation governed by a study executive and advisory board will assemble empirical evidence to inform the CONSORT-equity extension. To create the guideline, the following steps are proposed: (1) develop a conceptual framework for identifying "equity-relevant trials," (2) assess empirical evidence regarding reporting of equity-relevant trials, (3) consult with global methods and content experts on how to improve reporting of health equity in RCTs, (4) collect broad feedback and prioritize items needed to improve reporting of health equity in RCTs, (5) establish consensus on the CONSORT-equity extension: the guideline for equity-relevant trials, and (6) broadly disseminate and implement the CONSORT-equity extension. DISCUSSION: This work will be relevant to a broad range of RCTs addressing questions of effectiveness for strategies to improve practice and policy in the areas of social determinants of health, clinical care, health systems, public health, and international development, where health and/or access to health care is a primary outcome. The outcomes include a reporting guideline (CONSORT-equity extension) for equity-relevant RCTs and a knowledge translation strategy to broadly encourage its uptake and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies.

Optimizing clinical practice in Ontario based on data, evidence and guidelines

Optimizing clinical practice based on data, evidence and guidelines is a challenge faced in every health system around the world. The way the challenge manifests itself at the level of the patient has been remarkably consistent over time: tough decisions made at the intersection of clinical expertise, patient values and preferences, and the best available data, evidence and guidelines.(1) Rigid clinical decision support systems, insufficient attention to patient goals of care and shared decision-making (particularly in the face of multimorbidity), and the large volume of available data, evidence and guidelines (of variable reliability and clinical significance) are variations on a now twodecades-old theme about just how tough these decisions can be

Evaluation of the impact of fetal fibronectin test implementation on hospital admissions for preterm labour in Ontario: a multiple baseline time-series design.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of a health system-wide fetal fibronectin (fFN) testing programme on the rates of hospital admission for preterm labour (PTL). DESIGN: Multiple baseline time-series design. SETTING: Canadian province of Ontario. POPULATION: A retrospective population-based cohort of antepartum and delivered obstetrical admissions in all Ontario hospitals between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2010. METHODS: International Classification of Diseases codes in a health system-wide hospital administrative database were used to identify the study population and define the outcome measure. An aggregate time series of monthly rates of hospital admissions for PTL was analysed using segmented regression models after aligning the fFN test implementation date for each institution. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Rate of obstetrical hospital admission for PTL. RESULTS: Estimated rates of hospital admission for PTL following fFN implementation were lower than predicted had pre-implementation trends prevailed. The reduction in the rate was modest, but statistically significant, when estimated at 12 months following fFN implementation (-0.96 hospital admissions for PTL per 100 preterm births; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.02 to -0.90, P = 0.04). The statistically significant reduction was sustained at 24 and 36 months following implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Using a robust quasi-experimental study design to overcome confounding as a result of underlying secular trends or concurrent interventions, we found evidence of a small but statistically significant reduction in the health system-level rate of hospital admissions for PTL following implementation of fFN testing in a large Canadian province.

Family history tools in primary care: does one size fit all?

Family health history (FHH) has potential value in many health care settings. This review discusses the potential uses of FHH information in primary care and the need for tools to be designed accordingly. We developed a framework in which the attributes of FHH tools are mapped against these different purposes. It contains 7 attributes mapped against 5 purposes. In considering different FHH tool purposes, it is apparent that different attributes become more or less important, and that tools for different purposes require different implementation and evaluation strategies. The context in which a tool is used is also relevant to its effectiveness. For FHH tools, it is unlikely that 'one size fits all', although appreciation of different purposes, users and contexts should facilitate the development of different applications from single FHH platforms.

Impact of CONSORT extension for cluster randomised trials on quality of reporting and study methodology: review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000-8.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the 2004 extension of the CONSORT guidelines on the reporting and methodological quality of cluster randomised trials. DESIGN: Methodological review of 300 randomly sampled cluster randomised trials. Two reviewers independently abstracted 14 criteria related to quality of reporting and four methodological criteria specific to cluster randomised trials. We compared manuscripts published before CONSORT (2000-4) with those published after CONSORT (2005-8). We also investigated differences by journal impact factor, type of journal, and trial setting. DATA SOURCES: A validated Medline search strategy. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Cluster randomised trials published in English language journals, 2000-8. RESULTS: There were significant improvements in five of 14 reporting criteria: identification as cluster randomised; justification for cluster randomisation; reporting whether outcome assessments were blind; reporting the number of clusters randomised; and reporting the number of clusters lost to follow-up. No significant improvements were found in adherence to methodological criteria. Trials conducted in clinical rather than non-clinical settings and studies published in medical journals with higher impact factor or general medical journals were more likely to adhere to recommended reporting and methodological criteria overall, but there was no evidence that improvements after publication of the CONSORT extension for cluster trials were more likely in trials conducted in clinical settings nor in trials published in either general medical journals or in higher impact factor journals. CONCLUSION: The quality of reporting of cluster randomised trials improved in only a few aspects since the publication of the extension of CONSORT for cluster randomised trials, and no improvements at all were observed in essential methodological features. Overall, the adherence to reporting and methodological guidelines for cluster randomised trials remains suboptimal, and further efforts are needed to improve both reporting and methodology.

Death, dependency and health status 90 days following hospital admission for acute stroke in NSW.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is an Australian health priority area causing considerable levels of disability. We report 90-day outcomes for a cohort of acute stroke patients in New South Wales (NSW), Australia prior to randomization to a large cluster randomized controlled trial (CRCT), the Quality in Acute Stroke Care (QASC) trial. AIMS: This paper describes prospectively collected, 90-day outcome data for a cohort of NSW stroke patients, providing pre-intervention data for the QASC trial. METHODS: A consecutive sample of patients from acute stroke units in NSW was recruited. We measured patient death, disability (modified Rankin Score (mRS)), dependency (Barthel Index (BI)) and Health Status (Medical Outcomes Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)) 90 days post-hospital admission. We also collected self-reported healthcare utilization and patient satisfaction with health professionals' advice and management to reduce risk of subsequent stroke. RESULTS: Ninety-day outcome data were obtained for 687 patients, of which, 335 (49%) had an mRS ≥2; 44 patients (6.4%) had died. For the 643 surviving patients, the mean BI was 87.2 (SD 21.9) and the mean scores for SF-36 Physical Component Summary score and Mental Component Summary score were 46.2 (SD 10.1) and 46.3 (SD 12.6) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this pre-intervention cohort of selected acute stroke inpatients, stroke severity was mild to moderate and subsequent clinical outcomes were favourable in the majority. The findings from this study provide a comprehensive description of 90-day health outcomes of patients who have experienced a mild-moderate stroke managed in stroke care units across metropolitan NSW and provide valuable data to inform the subsequent cluster trial.

A study of the perceived risks, benefits and barriers to the use of SDD in adult critical care units (the SuDDICU study).

BACKGROUND: Hospital acquired infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality and markedly increased health care costs. Critically ill patients who require management in an Intensive Care Unit are particularly susceptible to these infections which are associated with a very high mortality. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) may reduce these infections and improve mortality but it has not been widely adopted into practice. We aim to 1. Clarify reasons why clinicians have avoided implementing SDD into clinical practice despite the current best-evidence 2. Describe barriers to SDD implementation and 3. Identify what further evidence is required before full scale clinical implementation would be considered appropriate and feasible. METHODS: We have developed an international 'multi-lens' approach to investigate SDD from several perspectives. In case studies we will identify accounts of implementation of SDD in practice, in terms of the behaviours performed by the full range of individual clinicians, accounts of how SDD was first introduced into the Unit and specific content that may be used to populate the content of behaviour change techniques to be used in an implementation intervention and procedures to consider in order to deliver an implementation trial. In a 4 round Delphi study we will identify the range of stakeholders' beliefs, views and perceived barriers relating to the use of SDD. We will generate hypotheses about key beliefs about SDD and will inform the feasibility of any future randomised controlled trial. In large-scale nationwide postal questionnaire surveys of the state of current practice we will identify the factors predicting acceptability of an effectiveness or implementation trial using, and informed by, the theoretical domains structure. In semi-structured interviews with active international clinical trialists we will assess the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial and identify challenges and barriers to undertaking research in the field of SDD research. DISCUSSION: We believe these methods will allow us to determine whether clinical implementation trials or further large effectiveness trials are required before full scale implementation into clinical practice.