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.

Assessing the quality of care for people dying of cancer in hospital: development of the QualDeath framework.

Objective High-quality end-of-life care involves addressing patients' physical, psychosocial, cultural and spiritual needs. Although the measurement of the quality of care associated with dying and death is an important component of health care, there is a lack of evidence-based, systematic processes to examine the quality of dying and death of patients in hospital settings. Our purpose was to develop a systematic appraisal framework (QualDeath) for reviewing the quality of dying and death for patients with advanced cancer. The objectives were to: (1) explore the evidence regarding existing tools and processes related to appraisal of end-of-life care; (2) examine existing practices related to appraisal of quality of dying and death in hospital settings; and (3) develop QualDeath with consideration of potential acceptability and feasibility factors. Methods A co-design multiple methods approach was used. For objective 1, a rapid literature review was undertaken; for objective 2 we carried out semi-structured interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders in four major teaching hospitals; and for objective 3 we interviewed key stakeholders and held workshops with the project team to reach consensus. Results We developed QualDeath, a framework to assist hospital administrators and clinicians to systematically and retrospectively review the quality of dying and death for patients expected to die from advanced cancer. It offers four levels of potential implementation for hospitals to select from and incorporates medical record review, multidisciplinary meetings, quality of end-of-life care surveys and bereavement interviews with family carers. Conclusions The QualDeath framework provides hospitals with recommendations to formalise processes to evaluate end-of-life care. Although QualDeath was underpinned by several research methods, further research is needed to rigorously explore its impact and test its feasibility.

Understanding the experience of inpatient rehabilitation: insights into patient-centred care from patients and family members.

The aim of the study was describe the experiences, needs and preferences of recent inpatients of a rehabilitation centre, and the needs of their families. Data were collected in four focus groups, two with patients (n = 13) who had recently completed inpatient rehabilitation following an illness, injury or elective surgery, and two with family members (n = 11). During the focus groups, two researchers facilitated discussion on any topic that participants considered important to the experience of inpatient rehabilitation; participants were encouraged to describe their care, needs and preferences. The focus group discussions were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Field notes were hand recorded. Data were analysed and collated into themes. Six key themes emerged. Participants wanted: interactions with friendly, empathetic staff; regular contact with senior staff and all staff to introduce themselves by name and profession; timely communication of accurate information; and rehabilitation services seven days a week. The physical environment had both positive and negative effects on patient well-being. Patients with complex or atypical circumstances required special attention to ensure their needs were met. In conclusion, patients and families identified six important issues that need to be considered during inpatient rehabilitation.