Sustainable implementation of innovative, technology-based health care practices: A qualitative case study from stroke telemedicine.

INTRODUCTION: Technology-based innovation requires long-term changes to workforce routines, otherwise practices will not be sustained. The aim of this study was to identify influential factors in the ongoing use of an acute stroke telemedicine programme. METHODS: A new acute stroke telemedicine programme in a regional hospital receiving 375 patients with stroke or transient ischaemic attack per year was used as an exploratory case study. Semi-structured interviews with acute care and emergency department clinicians (n = 25) were conducted at two time-points: after a six-month pilot and then after a further 12-month implementation phase. Interviews (between 12-60 min) were recorded, transcribed and analysed inductively using descriptive thematic analysis. Reported barriers and facilitators were compared with those previously reported pre-implementation (deductive analysis) to identify changes over time. Using an implementation framework and a behaviour change taxonomy, strategies were developed to address influential factors on sustainability. RESULTS: New facilitators were identified including hospital system changes, benefits to clinicians and telemedicine becoming standard practice. New and ongoing barriers included infrequent use, competing demands and the continued resistance to a specific treatment. DISCUSSION: Understanding the factors supporting a health service in successfully implementing change can accelerate population benefits. The innovation itself may include barriers to be addressed, and barriers and facilitators can change over time. Individual attitudes remain critical to initial and ongoing success. Strategies proposed included promoting benefits across the organisation and allaying uncertainties with site-specific evidence. The effectiveness of these strategies, however, needs to be evaluated. Strategies sustaining change post-implementation should be considered.

Stroke survivor follow-up in a national registry: Lessons learnt from respondents who completed telephone interviews.

The Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (AuSCR) collects patient-reported outcomes at 90-180 days post-stroke. During telephone interviews, stroke survivors or their carers/family members often explain why they did not respond to a previously mailed survey. This feedback is useful to explore respondents' experiences of the follow-up process. Three main reasons for not returning surveys included: health-related time constraints, confusion about survey questions, and stroke denial. Such information is helpful in improving procedures for clinical quality disease registries and researchers using postal questionnaires.

Quality of Life Is Poorer for Patients With Stroke Who Require an Interpreter: An Observational Australian Registry Study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In multicultural Australia, some patients with stroke cannot fully understand, or speak, English. Language barriers may reduce quality of care and consequent outcomes after stroke, yet little has been reported empirically. METHODS: An observational study of patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack (2010-2015) captured from 45 hospitals participating in the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry. The use of interpreters in hospitals, which is routinely documented, was used as a proxy for severe language barriers. Health-Related Quality of Life was assessed using the EuroQoL-5 dimension-3 level measured 90 to 180 days after stroke. Logistic regression was undertaken to assess the association between domains of EuroQoL-5 dimension and interpreter status. RESULTS: Among 34 562 registrants, 1461 (4.2%) required an interpreter. Compared with patients without interpreters, patients requiring an interpreter were more often women (53% versus 46%; P<0.001), aged ≥75 years (68% versus 51%; P<0.001), and had greater access to stroke unit care (85% versus 78%; P<0.001). After accounting for patient characteristics and stroke severity, patients requiring interpreters had comparable discharge outcomes (eg, mortality, discharged to rehabilitation) to patients not needing interpreters. However, these patients reported poorer Health-Related Quality of Life (visual analogue scale coefficient, -9; 95% CI, -12.38, -5.62), including more problems with self-care (odds ratio: 2.22; 95% CI, 1.82, 2.72), pain (odds ratio: 1.84; 95% CI, 1.52, 2.34), anxiety or depression (odds ratio: 1.60; 95% CI, 1.33, 1.93), and usual activities (odds ratio: 1.62; 95% CI, 1.32, 2.00). CONCLUSIONS: Patients requiring interpreters reported poorer Health Related Quality of Life after stroke/transient ischemic attack despite greater access to stroke units. These findings should be interpreted with caution because we are unable to account for prestroke Health Related Quality of Life. Further research is needed.