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.

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.

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.

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.

Fever, Hyperglycemia, and Swallowing Management in Stroke Unit and Non-Stroke-Unit European Hospitals: A Quality in Acute Stroke Care (QASC) Europe Substudy.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Stroke unit care reduces patient morbidity and mortality. The Quality in Acute Stroke Care Europe Study achieved significant large-scale translation of nurse-initiated protocols to manage Fever, hyperglycemia (Sugar), and Swallowing (FeSS) in 64 hospitals across 17 European countries. However, not all hospitals had stroke units. Our study aimed to compare FeSS protocol adherence in stroke unit versus non-stroke-unit hospitals. METHODS: An observational study using Quality in Acute Stroke Care Europe Study postimplementation data was undertaken. Hospitals were categorized using 4 evidence-based characteristics for defining a stroke unit, collected from an organizational survey of participating hospitals. Differences in FeSS Protocol adherence between stroke unit and non-stroke-unit hospitals were investigated using mixed-effects logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex, and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale. RESULTS: Of the 56 hospitals from 16 countries providing organizational data, 34 (61%) met all 4 stroke unit characteristics, contributing data for 1825 of 2871 patients (64%) (stroke unit hospitals). Of the remaining 22 hospitals (39%), 17 (77%) met 3 of the 4 stroke unit characteristics (non-stroke-unit hospitals). There were no differences between hospitals with a stroke unit and those without for postimplementation adherence to fever (49% stroke unit vs 57% non-stroke unit; odds ratio [OR], 0.400; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.087-1.844; P = .240), hyperglycemia (50% stroke unit vs 57% non-stroke unit; OR, 0.403; 95% CI, 0.087-1.856; P = .243), swallowing (75% stroke unit vs 60% non-stroke unit; OR, 1.702; 95% CI, 0.643-4.502; P = .284), or overall FeSS Protocol adherence (36% stroke unit vs 36% non-stroke unit; OR, 0.466; 95% CI, 0.106-2.043; P = .311). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that the nurse-initiated FeSS Protocols can be implemented by hospitals regardless of stroke unit status. This is noteworthy because hospitals without stroke unit resources that care for acute stroke patients can potentially implement these protocols. Further effort is needed to ensure better adherence to the FeSS Protocols.

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.

Management of Poststroke Hyperglycemia: Results of the TEXAIS Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hyperglycemia in acute ischemic stroke reduces the efficacy of stroke thrombolysis and thrombectomy, with worse clinical outcomes. Insulin-based therapies are difficult to implement and may cause hypoglycemia. We investigated whether exenatide, a GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) receptor agonist, would improve stroke outcomes, and control poststroke hyperglycemia with minimal hypoglycemia. METHODS: The TEXAIS trial (Treatment With Exenatide in Acute Ischemic Stroke) was an international, multicenter, phase 2 prospective randomized clinical trial (PROBE [Prospective Randomized Open Blinded End-Point] design) enrolling adult patients with acute ischemic stroke ≤9 hours of stroke onset to receive exenatide (5 µg BID subcutaneous injection) or standard care for 5 days, or until hospital discharge (whichever sooner). The primary outcome (intention to treat) was the proportion of patients with ≥8-point improvement in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (or National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores 0-1) at 7 days poststroke. Safety outcomes included death, episodes of hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and adverse event. RESULTS: From April 2016 to June 2021, 350 patients were randomized (exenatide, n=177, standard care, n=173). Median age, 71 years (interquartile range, 62-79), median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, 4 (interquartile range, 2-8). Planned recruitment (n=528) was stopped early due to COVID-19 disruptions and funding constraints. The primary outcome was achieved in 97 of 171 (56.7%) in the standard care group versus 104 of 170 (61.2%) in the exenatide group (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.79-1.88]; P=0.38). No differences in secondary outcomes were observed. The per-patient mean daily frequency of hyperglycemia was significantly less in the exenatide group across all quartiles. No episodes of hypoglycemia were recorded over the treatment period. Adverse events of mild nausea and vomiting occurred in 6 (3.5%) exenatide patients versus 0 (0%) standard care with no withdrawal. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with exenatide did not reduce neurological impairment at 7 days in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Exenatide did significantly reduce the frequency of hyperglycemic events, without hypoglycemia, and was safe to use. Larger acute stroke trials using GLP-1 agonists such as exenatide should be considered. REGISTRATION: URL: www.australianclinicaltrials.gov.au; Unique identifier: ACTRN12617000409370. URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03287076.

Hydration and nutrition care practices in stroke: findings from the UK and Australia.

BACKGROUND: Dehydration and malnutrition are common in hospitalised patients following stroke leading to poor outcomes including increased mortality. Little is known about hydration and nutrition care practices in hospital to avoid dehydration or malnutrition, and how these practices vary in different countries. This study sought to capture how the hydration and nutrition needs of patients' post-stroke are assessed and managed in the United Kingdom (UK) and Australia (AUS). AIM: To examine and compare current in-hospital hydration and nutrition care practice for patients with stroke in the UK and Australia. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted between April and November 2019. Questionnaires were mailed to stroke specialist nurses in UK and Australian hospitals providing post-stroke inpatient acute care or rehabilitation. Non-respondents were contacted up to five times. RESULTS: We received 150/174 (86%) completed surveys from hospitals in the UK, and 120/162 (74%) in Australia. Of the 270 responding hospitals, 96% reported undertaking assessment of hydration status during an admission, with nurses most likely to complete assessments (85%). The most common methods of admission assessment were visual assessment of the patient (UK 62%; AUS 58%), weight (UK 52%; AUS 52%), and body mass index (UK 47%; AUS 42%). Almost all (99%) sites reported that nutrition status was assessed at some point during admission, and these were mainly completed by nurses (91%). Use of standardised nutrition screening tools were more common in the UK (91%) than Australia (60%). Similar proportions of hydration management decisions were made by physicians (UK 84%; AUS 83%), and nutrition management decisions by dietitians (UK 98%; AUS 97%). CONCLUSION: Despite broadly similar hydration and nutrition care practices after stroke in the UK and Australia, some variability was identified. Although nutrition assessment was more often informed by structured screening tools, the routine assessment of hydration was generally not. Nurses were responsible for assessment and monitoring, while dietitians and physicians undertook decision-making regarding management. Hydration care could be improved through the development of standardised assessment tools. This study highlights the need for increased implementation and use of evidence-based protocols in stroke hydration and nutrition care to improve patient outcomes.

The ACCELERATE Plus (assessment and communication excellence for safe patient outcomes) Trial Protocol: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial, cost-benefit analysis, and process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Nurses play an essential role in patient safety. Inadequate nursing physical assessment and communication in handover practices are associated with increased patient deterioration, falls and pressure injuries. Despite internationally implemented rapid response systems, falls and pressure injury reduction strategies, and recommendations to conduct clinical handovers at patients' bedside, adverse events persist. This trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness, implementation, and cost-benefit of an externally facilitated, nurse-led intervention delivered at the ward level for core physical assessment, structured patient-centred bedside handover and improved multidisciplinary communication. We hypothesise the trial will reduce medical emergency team calls, unplanned intensive care unit admissions, falls and pressure injuries. METHODS: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial will be conducted over 52 weeks. The intervention consists of a nursing core physical assessment, structured patient-centred bedside handover and improved multidisciplinary communication and will be implemented in 24 wards across eight hospitals. The intervention will use theoretically informed implementation strategies for changing clinician behaviour, consisting of: nursing executive site engagement; a train-the-trainer model for cascading facilitation; embedded site leads; nursing unit manager leadership training; nursing and medical ward-level clinical champions; ward nurses' education workshops; intervention tailoring; and reminders. The primary outcome will be a composite measure of medical emergency team calls (rapid response calls and 'Code Blue' calls), unplanned intensive care unit admissions, in-hospital falls and hospital-acquired pressure injuries; these measures individually will also form secondary outcomes. Other secondary outcomes are: i) patient-reported experience measures of receiving safe and patient-centred care, ii) nurses' perceptions of barriers to physical assessment, readiness to change, and staff engagement, and iii) nurses' and medical officers' perceptions of safety culture and interprofessional collaboration. Primary outcome data will be collected for the trial duration, and secondary outcome surveys will be collected prior to each step and at trial conclusion. A cost-benefit analysis and post-trial process evaluation will also be undertaken. DISCUSSION: If effective, this intervention has the potential to improve nursing care, reduce patient harm and improve patient outcomes. The evidence-based implementation strategy has been designed to be embedded within existing hospital workforces; if cost-effective, it will be readily translatable to other hospitals nationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ID: ACTRN12622000155796. Date registered: 31/01/2022.

Sustaining a New Model of Acute Stroke Care: A Mixed-Method Process Evaluation of the Melbourne Mobile Stroke Unit.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, Mobile Stroke Unit (MSU) ambulances have changed pre-hospital acute stroke care delivery. MSU clinical and cost-effectiveness studies are emerging, but little is known about important factors for achieving sustainability of this innovative model of care. METHODS: Mixed-methods study from the Melbourne MSU (operational since November 2017) process evaluation. Participant purposive sampling included clinical, operational and executive/management representatives from Ambulance Victoria (AV) (emergency medical service provider), the MSU clinical team, and receiving hospitals. Sustainability was defined as ongoing MSU operations, including MSU workforce and future model considerations. Theoretically-based on-line survey with Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), Self Determination Theory (SDT, Intrinsic Motivation), and open-text questions targeting barriers and benefits was administered (June-September 2019). Individual/group interviews were conducted, eliciting improvement suggestions and requirements for ongoing use. Descriptive and regression analyses (quantitative data) and directed content and thematic analysis (open text and interview data) were conducted. RESULTS: There were 135 surveys completed. Identifying that the MSU was beneficial to daily work (ß=0.61), not experiencing pressure/tension about working on the MSU (ß=0.17) and thinking they did well working within the team model (ß=0.17) were significantly associated with wanting to continue working within the MSU model [R2=0.76; F(15, 60)=12.76, P<.001]. Experiences varied between those on the MSU team and those working with the MSU. Advantages were identified for patients (better, faster care) and clinicians (interdisciplinary learning). Disadvantages included challenges integrating into established systems, and establishing working relationships. Themes identified from 35 interviews were MSU team composition, MSU vehicle design and layout, personnel recruitment and rostering, communication improvements between organisations, telemedicine options, MSU operations and dispatch specificity. CONCLUSION: Important factors affecting the sustainability of the MSU model of stroke care emerged. A cohesive team approach, with identifiable benefits and good communication between participating organisations is important for clinical and operational sustainability.

Interventions for the uptake of evidence-based recommendations in acute stroke settings.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing body of research evidence to guide acute stroke care. Receiving care in a stroke unit improves access to recommended evidence-based therapies and patient outcomes. However, even in stroke units, evidence-based recommendations are inconsistently delivered by healthcare workers to patients with stroke. Implementation interventions are strategies designed to improve the delivery of evidence-based care. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of implementation interventions (compared to no intervention or another implementation intervention) on adherence to evidence-based recommendations by health professionals working in acute stroke units. Secondary objectives were to assess factors that may modify the effect of these interventions, and to determine if single or multifaceted strategies are more effective in increasing adherence with evidence-based recommendations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Joanna Briggs Institute and ProQuest databases to 13 April 2022. We searched the grey literature and trial registries and reviewed reference lists of all included studies, relevant systematic reviews and primary studies; contacted corresponding authors of relevant studies and conducted forward citation searching of the included studies. There were no restrictions on language and publication date. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials. Participants were health professionals providing care to patients in acute stroke units; implementation interventions (i.e. strategies to improve delivery of evidence-based care) were compared to no intervention or another implementation intervention. We included studies only if they reported on our primary outcome which was quality of care, as measured by adherence to evidence-based recommendations, in order to address the review aim. 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. We compared single implementation interventions to no intervention, multifaceted implementation interventions to no intervention, multifaceted implementation interventions compared to single implementation interventions and multifaceted implementation interventions to another multifaceted intervention. Our primary outcome was adherence to evidence-based recommendations. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven cluster-randomised trials with 42,489 patient participants from 129 hospitals, conducted in Australia, the UK, China, and the Netherlands. Health professional participants (numbers not specified) included nursing, medical and allied health professionals. Interventions in all studies included implementation strategies targeting healthcare workers; three studies included delivery arrangements, no studies used financial arrangements or governance arrangements. Five trials compared a multifaceted implementation intervention to no intervention, two trials compared one multifaceted implementation intervention to another multifaceted implementation intervention. No included studies compared a single implementation intervention to no intervention or to a multifaceted implementation intervention. Quality of care outcomes (proportions of patients receiving evidence-based care) were included in all included studies. All studies had low risks of selection bias and reporting bias, but high risk of performance bias. Three studies had high risks of bias from non-blinding of outcome assessors or due to analyses used. We are uncertain whether a multifaceted implementation intervention leads to any change in adherence to evidence-based recommendations compared with no intervention (risk ratio (RR) 1.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 3.61; 4 trials; 76 clusters; 2144 participants, I2 =92%, very low-certainty evidence). Looking at two specific processes of care, multifaceted implementation interventions compared to no intervention probably lead to little or no difference in the proportion of patients with ischaemic stroke who received thrombolysis (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.37, 2 trials; 32 clusters; 1228 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), but probably do increase the proportion of patients who receive a swallow screen within 24 hours of admission (RR 6.76, 95% CI 4.44 to 10.76; 1 trial; 19 clusters; 1,804 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Multifaceted implementation interventions probably make little or no difference in reducing the risk of death, disability or dependency compared to no intervention (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02; 3 trials; 51 clusters ; 1228 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably make little or no difference to hospital length of stay compared with no intervention (difference in absolute change 1.5 days; 95% CI -0.5 to 3.5; 1 trial; 19 clusters; 1804 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We do not know if a multifaceted implementation intervention compared to no intervention result in changes to resource use or health professionals' knowledge because no included studies collected these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether a multifaceted implementation intervention compared to no intervention improves adherence to evidence-based recommendations in acute stroke settings, because the certainty of evidence is very low.

Task-specific training versus usual care to improve upper limb function after stroke: the "Task-AT Home" randomised controlled trial protocol.

Background: Sixty percent of people have non-functional arms 6 months after stroke. More effective treatments are needed. Cochrane Reviews show low-quality evidence that task-specific training improves upper limb function. Our feasibility trial showed 56 h of task-specific training over 6 weeks resulted in an increase of a median 6 points on the Action Research Arm test (ARAT), demonstrating the need for more definitive evidence from a larger randomised controlled trial. Task-AT Home is a two-arm, assessor-blinded, multicentre randomised, controlled study, conducted in the home setting. Aim: The objective is to determine whether task-specific training is a more effective treatment than usual care, for improving upper limb function, amount of upper limb use, and health related quality of life at 6 weeks and 6 months after intervention commencement. Our primary hypothesis is that upper limb function will achieve a ≥ 5 point improvement on the ARAT in the task-specific training group compared to the usual care group, after 6 weeks of intervention. Methods: Participants living at home, with remaining upper limb deficit, are recruited at 3 months after stroke from sites in NSW and Victoria, Australia. Following baseline assessment, participants are randomised to 6 weeks of either task-specific or usual care intervention, stratified for upper limb function based on the ARAT score. The task-specific group receive 14 h of therapist-led task-specific training plus 42 h of guided self-practice. The primary outcome measure is the ARAT at 6 weeks. Secondary measures include the Motor Activity Log (MAL) at 6 weeks and the ARAT, MAL and EQ5D-5 L at 6 months. Assessments occur at baseline, after 6 weeks of intervention, and at 6 months after intervention commencement. Analysis will be intention to treat using a generalised linear mixed model to report estimated mean differences in scores between the two groups at each timepoint with 95% confidence interval and value of p. Discussion: If the task-specific home-based training programme is more effective than usual care in improving arm function, implementation of the programme into clinical practice would potentially lead to improvements in upper limb function and quality of life for people with stroke. Clinical Trial Registration: ANZCTR.org.au/ACTRN12617001631392p.aspx.

Impact assessment of the Centre for Research Excellence in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery.

BACKGROUND: Research impact is an emerging measure of research achievement alongside traditional academic outputs such as publications. We present the results of applying the Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research (FAIT) to the Centre for Research Excellence (CRE) in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery (CRE-Stroke, 2014-2019) and report on the feasibility and lessons from the application of FAIT to a CRE rather than a discrete research project. METHODS: Data were gathered via online surveys, in-depth interviews, document analysis and review of relevant websites/databases to report on the three major FAIT methods: the modified Payback Framework, an assessment of costs against monetized consequences, and a narrative account of the impact generated from CRE-Stroke activities. FAIT was applied during the last 4 years of CRE-Stroke operation. RESULTS: With an economic investment of AU$ 3.9 million over 5 years, CRE-Stroke delivered a return on investment that included AU$ 18.8 million in leveraged grants, fellowships and consultancies. Collectively, CRE-Stroke members produced 354 publications that were accessed 470,000 times and cited over 7220 times. CRE-Stroke supported 26 PhDs, 39 postdocs and seven novice clinician researchers. There were 59 capacity-building events benefiting 744 individuals including policy-makers and consumers. CRE-Stroke created research infrastructure (including a research register of stroke survivors and a brain biobank), and its global leadership produced international consensus recommendations to influence the stroke research landscape worldwide. Members contributed to the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines: four researchers' outputs were directly referenced. Based only on the consequences that could be monetized, CRE-Stroke returned AU$ 4.82 for every dollar invested in the CRE. CONCLUSION: This case example in the developing field of impact assessment illustrates how researchers can use evidence to demonstrate and report the impact of and returns on research investment. The prospective application of FAIT by a dedicated research impact team demonstrated impact in broad categories of knowledge-gain, capacity-building, new infrastructure, input to policy and economic benefits. The methods can be used by other research teams to provide comprehensive evidence to governments and other research funders about what has been generated from their research investment but requires dedicated resources to complete.

Six years of the Angels Initiative: Aims, achievements, and future directions to improve stroke care worldwide.

The rate of stroke-related death and disability is four times higher in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) than in high-income countries (HICs), yet stroke units exist in only 18% of LMICs, compared with 91% of HICs. In order to ensure universal and equitable access to timely, guideline-recommended stroke care, multidisciplinary stroke-ready hospitals with coordinated teams of healthcare professionals and appropriate facilities are essential.Established in 2016, the Angels Initiative is an international, not-for-profit, public-private partnership. It is run in collaboration with the World Stroke Organization, European Stroke Organisation, and regional and national stroke societies in over 50 countries. The Angels Initiative aims to increase the global number of stroke-ready hospitals and to optimize the quality of existing stroke units. It does this through the work of dedicated consultants, who help to standardize care procedures and build coordinated, informed communities of stroke professionals. Angels consultants also establish quality monitoring frameworks using online audit platforms such as the Registry of Stroke Care Quality (RES-Q), which forms the basis of the Angels award system (gold/platinum/diamond) for all stroke-ready hospitals across the world.The Angels Initiative has supported over 1700 hospitals (>1000 in LMICs) that did not previously treat stroke patients to become "stroke ready." Since its inception in 2016, the Angels Initiative has impacted the health outcomes of an estimated 7.46 million stroke patients globally (including an estimated 4.68 million patients in LMICs). The Angels Initiative has increased the number of stroke-ready hospitals in many countries (e.g. in South Africa: 5 stroke-ready hospitals in 2015 vs 185 in 2021), reduced "door to treatment time" (e.g. in Egypt: 50% reduction vs baseline), and increased quality monitoring substantially.The focus of the work of the Angels Initiative has now expanded from the hyperacute phase of stroke treatment to the pre-hospital setting, as well as to the early post-acute setting. A continued and coordinated global effort is needed to achieve the target of the Angels Initiative of >10,000 stroke-ready hospitals by 2030, and >7500 of these in LMICs.

Translation of nurse-initiated protocols to manage fever, hyperglycaemia and swallowing following stroke across Europe (QASC Europe): A pre-test/post-test implementation study.

Introduction: Poor adoption of stroke guidelines is a problem internationally. The Quality in Acute Stroke Care (QASC) trial demonstrated significant reduction in death and disability with facilitated implementation of nurse-initiated. Methods: This was a multi-country, multi-centre, pre-test/post-test study (2017-2021) comparing post implementation data with historically collected pre-implementation data. Hospital clinical champions, supported by the Angels Initiative conducted multidisciplinary workshops discussing pre-implementation medical record audit results, barriers and facilitators to FeSS Protocol implementation, developed action plans and provided education, with ongoing support co-ordinated remotely from Australia. Prospective audits were conducted 3-month after FeSS Protocol introduction. Pre-to-post analysis and country income classification comparisons were adjusted for clustering by hospital and country controlling for age/sex/stroke severity. Results: Data from 64 hospitals in 17 countries (3464 patients pre-implementation and 3257 patients post-implementation) showed improvement pre-to-post implementation in measurement recording of all three FeSS components, all p < 0.0001: fever elements (pre: 17%, post: 51%; absolute difference 33%, 95% CI 30%, 37%); hyperglycaemia elements (pre: 18%, post: 52%; absolute difference 34%; 95% CI 31%, 36%); swallowing elements (pre: 39%, post: 67%; absolute difference 29%, 95% CI 26%, 31%) and thus in overall FeSS Protocol adherence (pre: 3.4%, post: 35%; absolute difference 33%, 95% CI 24%, 42%). In exploratory analysis of FeSS adherence by countries' economic status, high-income versus middle-income countries improved to a comparable extent. Discussion and conclusion: Our collaboration resulted in successful rapid implementation and scale-up of FeSS Protocols into countries with vastly different healthcare systems.

Midwife led randomised controlled trials in Australia and New Zealand: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Midwives are the largest workforce involved in caring for pregnant women and their babies, and are well placed to translate research into practice and ensure midwifery priorities are appropriately targeted in researched. Currently, the number and focus of randomised controlled trials led by midwives in Australia and New Zealand is unknown. The Australasian Nursing and Midwifery Clinical Trials Network was established in 2020 to build nursing and midwifery research capacity. To aid this, scoping reviews of the quality and quantity of nurse and midwife led trials were undertaken. AIM: To identify midwife led trials conducted between 2000 and 2021 in Australia and New Zealand. METHODS: This review was informed by the JBI scoping review framework. Medline, Emcare, and Scopus were searched from 2000-August 2021. ANZCTR, NHMRC, MRFF, and HRC (NZ) registries were searched from inception to July 2021. FINDINGS: Of 26,467 randomised controlled trials registered on the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, 50 midwife led trials, and 35 peer-reviewed publications were identified. Publications were of moderate to high quality with scores limited due to an inability to blind participants or clinicians. Blinding of assessors was included in 19 published trials. DISCUSSION: Additional support for midwives to design and conduct trials and publish findings is required. Further support is needed to translate registration of trial protocols into peer reviewed publications. CONCLUSION: These findings will inform the Australasian Nursing and Midwifery Clinical Trials Network plans to promote quality midwife led trials.

A scoping review of nurse-led randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Nurses comprise the largest portion of the healthcare workforce worldwide. However, nurse representation in the leadership of clinical research and research funding is largely unknown. The Australasian Nursing and Midwifery Clinical Trials Network was established to provide a coordinated network, focussed on building research capacity in nursing and midwifery. To support this work, this scoping review of nurse-led randomised controlled trials was conducted to summarise research activity, as well as highlight future research directions, gaps and resources. Midwife-led trials will be reported elsewhere. AIM: To quantify number, type and quality of nurse-led randomised controlled trials registered between 2000-2021. DESIGN: A scoping review of RCTs. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Emcare and Scopus were searched from 2000 to August 2021. ANZCTR, NHMRC, MRFF and HRC (NZ) registries were searched from inception to July 2021. REVIEW METHODS: This review was informed by the JBI scoping review framework using the PRISMA-ScR. RESULTS: Our search yielded 188 nurse-led publications and 279 registered randomised controlled trials. Multiple trials had the same nurse leaders. There were more registrations than publications. Publications were predominantly of high methodological quality; however, there was a reliance on active controls and blinding was low. Trial registrations indicate that universities and hospital/healthcare organisations were the major sources of funding, while publications indicate that Governments and the National Health and Medical Research Council were the main funding bodies. CONCLUSION: A small number of high-quality, large-scale, nationally funded randomised controlled trials were identified, with a larger number of locally funded small trials. There was a disparity between the number of registered trials and those published. Additional infrastructure, funding and career frameworks are needed to enable nurses to design, conduct and publish clinical trials that inform the health system and improve health outcomes. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Research initiated and led by nurses has the potential to improve the health and well-being of individuals and communities, and current nurse-led research is of high methodological quality; however, there were very few nurse-led RCTs, conducted by a small pool of nurse researchers. This gap highlights the need for support in the design, conduct and publishing of nurse-led RCTs. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This is a scoping review; therefore, patient or public contribution is not applicable.