Effects of a nurse-led motor function rehabilitation training program for patients with ischemic stroke and family caregivers: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Both individuals and society bear a considerable burden from ischemic stroke (IS), not only do patients continue suffering from motor dysfunction after discharge from hospital, but their caregivers also undertake the principal responsibility of assisting them in reintegrating into the family and society. To better improve the IS patients' limb function and daily life activities, their caregivers should also be involved in the training of the motor function rehabilitation during the period transitioning from hospital back home. This study mainly aims to investigate the effects of a nurse-led training for IS patients and their family caregivers on the improvement of the patients' physical function and the burden of caregivers. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial with blind assessment will be conducted in hospitals and during the follow-ups at home. Fifty-eight pairs of adults diagnosed with ischemic stroke and their primary caregivers will be included. Participants will be randomly given with (1) a nurse-led, home-based motor rehabilitation training participated by caregivers (intervention group) or (2) routine self-care (control group). Both groups will receive assessment and health guidance on the day of discharge, and the intervention group will receive an additional home-based training program and supervision. These two groups will be followed up every week after discharge. The primary results are drawn from the evaluation of physical function and caregiver-related burden, and the secondary results derived from statistics of the modified Barthel index, stroke-specific quality of life, and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale. Differences between the two groups will be measured by two-way repeated measures ANOVA, considering the data at baseline and at 1-week and 4-week follow-up after training. DISCUSSION: Results may provide novel and valuable information on the effects of this culturally appropriate, caregiver-involved, and home-based rehabilitation training on the physical function of IS patients and caregiver-related burden. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (chictr.org.cn) ChiCTR2300078798. Registered on December 19, 2023.

Outcomes From a Nursing-Driven Acute Stroke Care Protocol for Telehealth Encounters.

INTRODUCTION: Nursing care is widely recognized to be a vital element in stroke care delivery. However, no publications examining clinical education and optimal workflow practices as predictors of acute ischemic stroke care metrics exist. This study aimed to explore the impact of a nurse-led workflow to improve patient care that included telestroke encounters in the emergency department. METHODS: A nonrandomized prospective pre- and postintervention unit-level feasibility study design was used to explore how implementing nurse-driven acute stroke care affects the efficiency and quality of telestroke encounters in the emergency department. Nurses and providers in the emergency department received education/training, and then the Nursing-Driven Acute Ischemic Stroke Care protocol was implemented. RESULTS: There were 180 acute ischemic stroke encounters (40.3%) in the control phase and 267 (59.7%) in the postintervention phase with similar demographic characteristics. Comparing the control with intervention times directly affected by the nurse-driven protocol, there was a significant reduction in median door-to-provider times (5 [interquartile range 12] vs 2 [interquartile range 9] minutes, P < .001) and in median door-to-computed tomography scan times (9 [interquartile range 18] vs 5 [interquartile range 11] minutes, P < .001); however, the metrics potentially affected by extraneous variables outside of the nurse-driven protocol demonstrated longer median door-to-ready times (21 [interquartile range 24] vs 25 [interquartile range 25] minutes, P < .001). Door-to-specialist and door-to-needle times were not significantly different. DISCUSSION: In this sample, implementation of the nurse-driven acute stroke care protocol is associated with improved nurse-sensitive stroke time metrics but did not translate to faster delivery of thrombolytic agents for acute ischemic stroke, emphasizing the importance of well-outlined workflows and standardized stroke code protocols at every point in acute ischemic stroke care.

Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Nursing versus Usual Therapist-Led Treatment in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial.

PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of rehabilitation nursing program interventions in patients with acute ischemic stroke. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An assessment-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary referral hospital in China. Eligible patients were stratified according to their weighted corticospinal tract lesion load and then randomly assigned to an experimental group (n = 121) or a control group (n = 103). The experimental group received rehabilitation nursing from well-trained, qualified nurses (30 minutes per session, two sessions per day for seven consecutive days). The control group received therapist-led rehabilitation with the same timing and frequency. Comparative analysis of the primary outcomes was performed to determine non-inferiority with a predetermined non-inferiority margin. The primary outcomes were the Motor Assessment Scale, Fugl-Meyer Assessment, and the Action Research Arm Test assessed at baseline and after seven days of treatment. The secondary outcomes were the modified Barthel Index, the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, and the modified Rankin Scale, evaluated before and after the intervention and at 4 and 12 weeks of follow-up. RESULTS: Two hundred participants completed the trial. In both groups, all outcomes improved significantly after seven days and at follow-ups. The rehabilitation nursing program was non-inferior to therapist-led treatment with lower 95% confidence limits beyond the margins for primary outcomes (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both treatments had comparable effects; however, no definite conclusion could be drawn. Adequately powered studies are required.